# Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 15, 2014)

So he's coming out this week, having served half his sentence for rape.

Judy Finnigan has declared that his rape was not as bad as other rapes 

His girlfriend is standing by him, in spite of him being filmed committing the rape.

His girlfriend's father is also standing by him and funding appeals and this website: http://www.chedevans.com/

120,000 have signed a petition calling for him not to be allowed to resume his football career upon release, 5000 have signed a counter-petition for him to be allowed back in the Blades.

Personally I don't think that anyone who has served their time for a crime should be denied work.

However I really do not understand how you can be released half way through your sentence whilst still protesting you innocence?


----------



## bmd (Oct 15, 2014)

I don't understand that either, but then sentencing has changed massively over the last 5 years. That said, I'm not sure how a sex offender can protest their innocence, be released early and not be seen as a risk.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> 120,000 have signed a petition calling for him not to be allowed to resume his football career upon release, 5000 have signed a counter-petition for him to be allowed back in the Blades.



Presumably the owner of the business will have to make a commercial decision about Evan's future employment; the fact that he comes from a country in which victims of rape can suffer more severe punishment than the perpetrator might, or might not, figure.


----------



## marty21 (Oct 15, 2014)

nasty case - the victim got hounded on twitter and outed by supporters of Evans - I think a couple of them got done for it. Seems an early release and he probably will play professionally again, maybe with Sheff Utd his former club - I think there have been other players convicted of sex crimes who have played again


----------



## bmd (Oct 15, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Presumably the owner of the business will have to make a commercial decision about Evan's future employment; the fact that he comes from a country in which victims of rape can suffer more severe punishment than the perpetrator might, or might not, figure.



I hope not. He owns a business in a country that pretends to take sexual crimes seriously.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 15, 2014)

I wonder what the chants on the terraces will be like.


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 15, 2014)

There's a couple of things with this. _If_ that site is to be believed, then it doesn't seem to be a clear cut case. Note: this isn't me saying he's innocent/she's lying. I didn't read the stuff about the case at the time, and of course, most rapes are not clear cut cases so there's that as well. But seeing as he was found guilty, he should be forced to serve his full sentence as he's shown no remorse. 

But once he's out, he should be allowed to work like anyone else. He's served his time, even if we disagree with the decision to release him. If I was a Sheffield United fan, though (or fan of any club), I would not want him playing for my club.

Complicated


----------



## marty21 (Oct 15, 2014)

he was a decent striker so even if Sheff Utd don't take him back (they cancelled his contract when he was sent down) another club will take him. Lee Hughes got plenty of clubs sniffing around when he was released (killed someone whilst driving) and is still playing in the Conference at 38


----------



## bmd (Oct 15, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> There's a couple of things with this. _If_ that site is to be believed, then it doesn't seem to be a clear cut case. Note: this isn't me saying he's innocent/she's lying. I didn't read the stuff about the case at the time, and of course, most rapes are not clear cut cases so there's that as well. But seeing as he was found guilty, he should be forced to serve his full sentence as he's shown no remorse.
> 
> But once he's out, he should be allowed to work like anyone else. He's served his time, even if we disagree with the decision to release him. If I was a Sheffield United fan, though (or fan of any club), I would not want him playing for my club.
> 
> Complicated



Is it complicated? He's done his time and therefore, if we believe in the justice system, he has a right to work in certain jobs. He will never work with vulnerable people but you don't need to pass a DBS check to be a footballer.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2014)

bmd said:


> Is it complicated? He's done his time and therefore, if we believe in the justice system, he has a right to work in certain jobs. He will never work with vulnerable people but you don't need to pass a DBS check to be a footballer.


Except he would not be able to undertake any non-footballing 'community' responsibilities for the business that involved working unsupervised with women or minors?


----------



## bmd (Oct 15, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Except he would not be able to undertake any non-footballing 'community' responsibilities for the business that involved working unsupervised with women or minors?



Spot on. Well, his DBS check will reflect that he's a sex offender. It's up to his prospective employers whether they use that as a reason not to employ him. I wouldn't want my daughter training with a club who had him as a coach, that's for certain.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 15, 2014)

bmd said:


> Is it complicated?



The case is complicated, he was found guilty of rape as the woman he had sex with was too drunk to consent, the man who had sex with her minutes before Evans got stuck in was found not guilty. AFAIK Evan's girlfriend and her father are basing his innocence on this, in my mind it shows the guilt of the fella that got off.


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 15, 2014)

bmd said:


> Is it complicated? He's done his time and therefore, if we believe in the justice system, he has a right to work in certain jobs. He will never work with vulnerable people but you don't need to pass a DBS check to be a footballer.


Bahnhoff summed it up with regards to the case, but other complications are cheering for a rapist, whether he's "done his time" or not. I would have no problem buying milk from him, but I wouldn't want him playing for my football team.


----------



## bmd (Oct 15, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The case is complicated, he was found guilty of rape as the woman he had sex with was too drunk to consent, the man who had sex with her minutes before Evans got stuck in was found not guilty. AFAIK Evan's girlfriend and her father are basing his innocence on this, in my mind it shows the guilt of the fella that got off.



Yeah sure but Evans was convicted, has served a sentence and will be on probation for another two and a half years. How he's employed is between him and his prospective employer. That's not complicated but I agree the whole prosecution stank.


----------



## Yelkcub (Oct 15, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The case is complicated, he was found guilty of rape as the woman he had sex with was too drunk to consent, the man who had sex with her minutes before Evans got stuck in was found not guilty. AFAIK Evan's girlfriend and her father are basing his innocence on this, in my mind it shows the guilt of the fella that got off.



What was the basis of the mate's 'not guilty' outcome? Or, what was the perceived difference between the two?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 15, 2014)

Yelkcub said:


> What was the basis of the mate's 'not guilty' outcome? Or, what was the perceived difference between the two?



Don't know. Guess that's between the jury members only. Beyond reasonable doubt is a pretty high benchmark though.


----------



## bmd (Oct 15, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Bahnhoff summed it up with regards to the case, but other complications are cheering for a rapist, whether he's "done his time" or not. I would have no problem buying milk from him, but I wouldn't want him playing for my football team.



Yeah true, I wasn't thinking about that aspect. If I supported a club who employed him that would be a real problem for me.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 15, 2014)

"Negotiations to bring back Evans started after Saudi Arabian Prince Abdullah bin Mossad bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, one of the world’s richest men and co-owner of Sheffield United, gave a nod of approval for his return.
Since then manager Nigel Clough and co-chairman Kevin McCabe have frequently visited him behind bars."


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/convicted-rapist-footballer-ched-evans-3604122#ixzz3GD2CZ5PI 

The Saudi Prince says its alright so nobody worry 

A football club isn't just a business-it's made up of people, of a community. I live right by Bramall Lane, it's my local club. Although they'll never be my first team I would like to feel able to support them. The actions of a significant section of Utd fans in response to this whole sorry incident mean I just can't.

I find his total lack of remorse the most disturbing part. He maintains that he had consensual sex with someone who was _unconscious. 
_
Someone mentioned Lee Hughes. While I won't defend the man, he killed somebody unintentionally and showed remorse. In contrast, Ched Evans is still protesting his innocence despite the fact that during the trial a video of him forcibly penetrating an unconscious woman was produced. The man is clearly a deeply disturbed human being who has no concept whatever of the difference between rape and consensual sex. Personally I'd support his sentence being extended since he's clearly not been rehabilitated in the slightest.


----------



## bmd (Oct 15, 2014)

Yelkcub said:


> What was the basis of the mate's 'not guilty' outcome? Or, what was the perceived difference between the two?



BBC Wales News link.


----------



## Yelkcub (Oct 15, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> "
> Someone mentioned Lee Hughes. While I won't defend the man, he killed somebody unintentionally and showed remorse. In contrast, Ched Evans is still protesting his innocence *despite the fact that during the trial a video of him forcibly penetrating an unconscious woman was produced*. The man is clearly a deeply disturbed human being who has no concept whatever of the difference between rape and consensual sex. Personally I'd support his sentence being extended since he's clearly not been rehabilitated in the slightest.



Fuck! I didn't know that! What's wrong with is family?!?! They must know that?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 15, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> The Saudi Prince says its alright so nobody worry



A man who advocates the killing by stoning of Evans's victim.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 15, 2014)

Yelkcub said:


> Fuck! I didn't know that! What's wrong with is family?!?! They must know that?



If I remember rightly his sister said something like "She must have known what would happen if she went back to a hotel with two handsome footballers".


----------



## Yelkcub (Oct 15, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> If I remember rightly his sister said something like "She must have known what would happen if she went back to a hotel with two handsome footballers".


Fucking helll


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2014)

This is all just about shite sentencing. 

Once someone's served their time they should be considered rehabilitated and able to continue their employment. If they're not rehabilitated they shouldn't be released. Evans clearly isn't if he still thinks he didn't rape the woman. 

So his sentence should be extended.  

First offence rape should be a mandatory 10 years. 

Second offence - life.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 15, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> This is all just about shite sentencing.
> 
> Once someone's served their time they should be considered rehabilitated and able to continue their employment. If they're not rehabilitated they shouldn't be released. Evans clearly isn't if he still thinks he didn't rape the woman.
> 
> ...



I think it's also to do with the fact that Clayton wasn't convicted. They both penetrated her so Ched Evans' supporters are saying it doesn't make sense that one is convicted and the other not. 

Maybe it doesn't make sense but the victim went back to the hotel with just Clayton. Evans joined them later and walked in on them. Two friends watched through a window. I think the jury decided she consented to have sex with Clayton but since Evans turned up later the whole "well you went home with him" thing didn't really apply.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 15, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> This is all just about shite sentencing.
> 
> Once someone's served their time they should be considered rehabilitated and able to continue their employment. If they're not rehabilitated they shouldn't be released. Evans clearly isn't if he still thinks he didn't rape the woman.
> 
> ...



His sentence is five years. He's done 2 1/2, so no need to extend anything, but equally no need to let the creepy cunt out of stir.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 15, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> First offence rape should be a mandatory 10 years.
> 
> Second offence - life.



Oh, and wholly agree with you on this.

eta: life without parole for second offence.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 15, 2014)

.


----------



## mack (Oct 15, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm not familiar with the guy or the case, all I know is what's on this thread.



More detailed info from this site..

http://chedevans.com/


----------



## likesfish (Oct 15, 2014)

So the fuckwits thinking was slapper comes back to the hotel its a free for all.
  If she was Unconscious how could she possibly give consent?
 Even when I was younger I  managed to figure out if a woman passes out on you that isn't a green light for sexy time Just how fucking stupid do you have to be to belive your innocent. As for his supporters he's a rapist its on fucking video he raped somebody he was found guilty he went to jail.
  Doesn't deserve to be hounded until the end of time but got drunk crossed the line went to jail


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 15, 2014)

.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 15, 2014)

.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2014)

danny la rouge said:


> Just realised why I can't see this thread.



?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 15, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> ?



I meant what I said


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 15, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> A man who advocates the killing by stoning of Evans's victim.



When?


----------



## likesfish (Oct 15, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The case is complicated, he was found guilty of rape as the woman he had sex with was too drunk to consent, the man who had sex with her minutes before Evans got stuck in was found not guilty. AFAIK Evan's girlfriend and her father are basing his innocence on this, in my mind it shows the guilt of the fella that got off.



Exactly not the worlds worst rape but scum like behaviour and his supporters a lynch mob


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 15, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> When?



Every day of his adult life.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 15, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Every day of his adult life.



Any chance of a link?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Oct 15, 2014)

I don't think he should work add a professional footballer at all. Working behind the scenes perhaps.


----------



## marty21 (Oct 15, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I don't think he should work add a professional footballer at all. Working behind the scenes perhaps.


 strange thing to say - if you accept he can work, why restrict what he can do?


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 15, 2014)

marty21 said:


> he was a decent striker so even if Sheff Utd don't take him back *(they cancelled his contract when he was sent down)* another club will take him.



Is this definite, marty21 ?

Doesn't seem consistent with Sheffield United's owner trying to get him back, as suggested above.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 15, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Any chance of a link?



Doesn't need one. A Saudi prince can renounce his position, he chooses not to, in fact he takes it further by taking on government roles. ergo he's happy with the idea of stoning adulterous women.


----------



## marty21 (Oct 15, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Is this definite, marty21 ?
> 
> Doesn't seem consistent with Sheffield United's owner trying to get him back, as suggested above.


seem to remember them cancelling it when he got sentenced - maybe they have a new owner?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 15, 2014)

mack said:


> More detailed info from this site..
> 
> http://chedevans.com/



That's not really "info" is it?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 15, 2014)

marty21 said:


> strange thing to say - if you accept he can work, why restrict what he can do?



There's quite a lot of jobs that convicted sex offenders are quite rightly not allowed to do. And whilst a footballer's primary function doesn't involve anything in which it might be an issue, it's not a massive stretch to see a bundle of stuff that footballers do around their job (press and community stuff mainly) for which his history would make him massively inappropriate.

That said, the main reason Sheffield United shouldn't take him back is because he's an unrepentant rapist piece of shit and it's obscene to have 20,000 people cheering him on every other weekend.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 15, 2014)

If he's being released after having served half his sentence (actually 56%, IIRC, rather than 50%), without having expressed remorse or having undergone an SOTP (sex offender treatment programme), it's likely to be because treatment was unavailable (a bigger and bigger problem not just with regard to sex offences, but with addiction treatment too), or because (just as likely) staff were unavailable to take him to and from his treatment appointments.
That's right. Our prison system is so poorly funded now that results with regard to rehabilitation and addiction treatment are worse now than they were 20 and 30 years ago. The likes of Grayling will claim it's not about funding, but it always has been and always will be about funding (and about Home Secretaries not wanting to fund rehabilitation in case they look "weak").


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 15, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> That said, the main reason Sheffield United shouldn't take him back is because he's an unrepentant rapist piece of shit and it's obscene to have 20,000 people cheering him on every other weekend.



My views on this criminal In a nutshell.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> This is all just about shite sentencing.
> 
> Once someone's served their time they should be considered rehabilitated and able to continue *their* employment.



In principle, yes...but the assumption made with the word "_*their" *_can't be made in cases where the offence requires registration. And then, of course, it is in the hands of the employer.


----------



## marty21 (Oct 15, 2014)

did a search on twitter, lots of people tweeting the story about Sheff Utd having talks with the convicted rapist Ched Evans about signing him up, a lot of them don't seem to mention the fact that he is a convicted rapist - they seem more excited about getting the player back


----------



## marty21 (Oct 15, 2014)

I was reading about DJ Campbell, an ex premiership striker who was accused of match fixing  but not charged in the end - he was let go by his last club and couldn't get a sniff of another league contract, so signed up for a non-league club (Maidstone) yet a convicted rapist appears to have no problems getting a new contract


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 15, 2014)

marty21 said:


> strange thing to say - if you accept he can work, why restrict what he can do?


Being a professional sports person is more a privilege than a right, imo.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 15, 2014)

bmd said:


> I'm not sure how a sex offender can protest their innocence, be released early and not be seen as a risk.



Anyone got any answers to this^^^? It seems a pertinent enough question.


----------



## marty21 (Oct 15, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Being a professional sports person is more a privilege than a right, imo.


 personally I don't think he should be able to play again


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2014)

marty21 said:


> ... a convicted rapist appears to have no problems getting a new contract



with a Saudi owned company.


----------



## telbert (Oct 15, 2014)

Fuck him.Cunt.


----------



## PandaCola (Oct 15, 2014)

marty21 said:


> seem to remember them cancelling it when he got sentenced - maybe they have a new owner?


As far as I am aware- he was sent down right at the end of the season- and his contract was about up. The contract wasn't cancelled, it just ran out just after he was sentenced.


----------



## Cid (Oct 15, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think it's also to do with the fact that Clayton wasn't convicted. They both penetrated her so Ched Evans' supporters are saying it doesn't make sense that one is convicted and the other not.
> 
> Maybe it doesn't make sense but the victim went back to the hotel with just Clayton. Evans joined them later and walked in on them. Two friends watched through a window. I think the jury decided she consented to have sex with Clayton but since Evans turned up later the whole "well you went home with him" thing didn't really apply.




There's a detailed report on the trial here. It's more to do with whether either defendant could reasonably believe she had consented. The mens rea element of rape is intention to penetrate and that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the victim would consent. No mens rea, no crime... The jury is able to take into account all the circumstances in establishing a reasonable belief in consent. In McDonald's case she came back to the hotel with him, apparently voluntarily - her conduct might indicate that it was reasonable for McDonald to believe she was consenting. It's not difficult to distinguish that from Evans who came to the flat later, the only evidence given that she consented in that case is the defence stating that she said 'yes' and was willing.

The appeals are based on the possibility that she did in fact consent (i.e that she had the capacity to do so and did). This was also an issue decided by the jury who seem to have been properly directed by the judge. On the facts they decided that she was not capable of consent, hence why McDonald had to rely on reasonable belief. Decisions by a properly directed jury are very difficult to appeal, which is why this (seemingly correctly) has not been allowed. The report doesn't say she was unconscious btw.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 15, 2014)

If the guy had shown remorse fair enough but he hasn't still thinks he was hard done by so fuck him and his so called supporters


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 15, 2014)

Cid said:


> There's a detailed report on the trial here. It's more to do with whether either defendant could reasonably believe she had consented. The mens rea element of rape is intention to penetrate and that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the victim would consent. No mens rea, no crime... The jury is able to take into account all the circumstances in establishing a reasonable belief in consent. In McDonald's case she came back to the hotel with him, apparently voluntarily - her conduct might indicate that it was reasonable for McDonald to believe she was consenting. It's not difficult to distinguish that from Evans who came to the flat later, the only evidence given that she consented in that case is the defence stating that she said 'yes' and was willing.
> 
> The appeals are based on the possibility that she did in fact consent (i.e that she had the capacity to do so and did). This was also an issue decided by the jury who seem to have been properly directed by the judge. On the facts they decided that she was not capable of consent, hence why McDonald had to rely on reasonable belief. Decisions by a properly directed jury are very difficult to appeal, which is why this (seemingly correctly) has not been allowed. The report doesn't say she was unconscious btw.


Just read that report and I have to say I agree with the conviction 100%. I can see why McDonald was acquitted but it could have easily gone the other way for him, too. If she was unable to consent to sex with Evans, then she was unable to consent to sex with him, surely?

Evans leaving by an emergency exit wasn't seemingly a factor in the jury's decision but it seems pretty important to me. Why do that unless you're trying to hide something?


----------



## Dr. Furface (Oct 15, 2014)

marty21 said:


> I was reading about DJ Campbell, an ex premiership striker who was accused of match fixing  but not charged in the end - he was let go by his last club and couldn't get a sniff of another league contract, so signed up for a non-league club (Maidstone) yet a convicted rapist appears to have no problems getting a new contract


To be fair that probably has more to do with Campbell's age - he's 32 - and the fact that he's a journeyman striker who's never been all that good, so I don't think the comparision with Evans is relevant. You mentioned Lee Hughes in a previous post and that's a far more pertinent comparison, given the nature of his crime and the fact that he was able to resurrect his career after serving his prison sentence (albeit at a lower level than before). 

FWIW I wouldn't want Evans playing for my club because of the negative publicity it would attract and the inevitable crowd reaction at every game for the forseeable future, but even so I'd argue he deserves the chance to play now he's served his time - it makes no difference at all whether I think he was guitly as charged or not. I liken it to when my NFL team the Philadelphia Eagles hired Michael Vick a few years ago after he'd served time for being involved in a dog fighting sysndicate - he hadn't played for the Eagles previously but had been a star player for another team (Atlanta). At the time I wasn't pleased that my team had taken him on but at the same time I accepted that they had every right to do so and that in some ways they could even be commended for giving a talented guy a second chance when other teams wouldn't have.


----------



## marshall (Oct 15, 2014)

Can't get my head round why his g/f is standing by him, it's not for the money or WAG lifestyle as her dad's obviously loaded. How do you forgive that kind of behaviour? What are you telling yourself? How do you thnk it's going to go when he gets out? A very tainted kind of love.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 15, 2014)

Dr. Furface said:


> FWIW I wouldn't want Evans playing for my club because of the negative publicity it would attract and the inevitable crowd reaction at every game for the forseeable future,



Would you not want him to play for your club because he's a rapey fucker?  

Virtually every club invests a lot of time and money in building their reputation as a family and community club - free tickets for the kids, players attending local training sessions / fund raisers etc.  I mean really, how would he do his bit for the club in the community?


----------



## Cid (Oct 15, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Just read that report and I have to say I agree with the conviction 100%. I can see why McDonald was acquitted but it could have easily gone the other way for him, too. If she was unable to consent to sex with Evans, then she was unable to consent to sex with him, surely?
> 
> Evans leaving by an emergency exit wasn't seemingly a factor in the jury's decision but it seems pretty important to me. Why do that unless you're trying to hide something?



Rape isn't simply an issue of the victim's consent, the defendant is required to have a guilty state of mind; i.e for there to be a crime the defendant must in some way intend to commit it (mens rea). In the case of rape there is a specific component (under s.1 of the Sexual Offences Act iirc) that the defendant is not guilty where they have a reasonable belief that victim is consenting.

In this case the jury had decided that the victim was unable to consent. This is part of the actus reus (action required for there to be a crime), in rape non-consensual penetration. The actus reus took place, but in McDonald's case the jury decided that he did not have the required mens rea.

In their situation the line of reasoning might go something like this: The test for a reasonable belief has two components, is there a belief (a subjective element) and is that belief reasonable (an objective element). In McDonald's case there was clearly a belief in consent. Whether that belief was reasonable depends on the facts - given the evidence of the taxi driver and hotel porter it seems as though the belief was reasonable. That might be much harder to establish in the case of Evans; there is no evidence of the victim's conduct in relation to him. 

The two defendants seem very similar on a casual examination but are legally quite distinct.


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 15, 2014)

Cid said:


> Rape isn't simply an issue of the victim's consent, the defendant is required to have a guilty state of mind; i.e for there to be a crime the defendant must in some way intend to commit it (mens rea). In the case of rape there is a specific component (under s.1 of the Sexual Offences Act iirc) that the defendant is not guilty where they have a reasonable belief that victim is consenting.
> 
> In this case the jury had decided that the victim was unable to consent. This is part of the actus reus (action required for there to be a crime), in rape non-consensual penetration. The actus reus took place, but in McDonald's case the jury decided that he did not have the required mens rea.
> 
> ...


Excellent explanation, thanks.


----------



## Athos (Oct 15, 2014)

Cid said:


> Rape isn't simply an issue of the victim's consent, the defendant is required to have a guilty state of mind; i.e for there to be a crime the defendant must in some way intend to commit it (mens rea). In the case of rape there is a specific component (under s.1 of the Sexual Offences Act iirc) that the defendant is not guilty where they have a reasonable belief that victim is consenting.
> 
> In this case the jury had decided that the victim was unable to consent. This is part of the actus reus (action required for there to be a crime), in rape non-consensual penetration. The actus reus took place, but in McDonald's case the jury decided that he did not have the required mens rea.
> 
> ...



Which the Evan's campaign seeks to downplay as some sort of 'legal nicety', suggesting that the differing verdicts are in some way perverse/illogical.


----------



## JTG (Oct 15, 2014)

marty21 said:


> I was reading about DJ Campbell, an ex premiership striker who was accused of match fixing  but not charged in the end - he was let go by his last club and couldn't get a sniff of another league contract, so signed up for a non-league club (Maidstone) yet a convicted rapist appears to have no problems getting a new contract


Maidenhead United

Four years ago, David Pipe was released by my club (Bristol Rovers) after he was charged (but before he stood trial) for smashing a champagne bottle over another man's head and fracturing his skull. While I was aware that Pipe wasn't a particularly nice fella, I was horrified that someone representing my club had been involved in such a brutal assault and would have felt extremely uncomfortable had we attempted to re-employ him after his release from prison. He has since played for Newport County and Forest Green Rovers.

Otoh, I'm also uncomfortable with campaigning to prevent convicted offenders who have served their time from taking up employment. However, I'm pretty certain that if I were a Sheffield United fan I would not be intending to fund his wages from my own.


----------



## gabi (Oct 16, 2014)

Weird case. Just read a fairly indepth account of what happened on the Mail (yes yes I know). Seems odd the other guy got off when he 'procured' the girl and had sex with her when she was at her drunkest, before Evans even got to the motel.

Not saying Evans is innocent, just trying to understand why the other guy isn't doing time.


----------



## toggle (Oct 16, 2014)

Cid said:


> There's a detailed report on the trial here. It's more to do with whether either defendant could reasonably believe she had consented. The mens rea element of rape is intention to penetrate and that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the victim would consent. No mens rea, no crime... The jury is able to take into account all the circumstances in establishing a reasonable belief in consent. In McDonald's case she came back to the hotel with him, apparently voluntarily - her conduct might indicate that it was reasonable for McDonald to believe she was consenting. It's not difficult to distinguish that from Evans who came to the flat later, the only evidence given that she consented in that case is the defence stating that she said 'yes' and was willing.
> 
> The appeals are based on the possibility that she did in fact consent (i.e that she had the capacity to do so and did). This was also an issue decided by the jury who seem to have been properly directed by the judge. On the facts they decided that she was not capable of consent, hence why McDonald had to rely on reasonable belief. Decisions by a properly directed jury are very difficult to appeal, which is why this (seemingly correctly) has not been allowed. The report doesn't say she was unconscious btw.



that reasonable belief in her consent based on her going back to the room with him sounds a lot like saying 'she was asking for it'



Athos said:


> Which the Evan's campaign seeks to downplay as some sort of 'legal nicety', suggesting that the differing verdicts are in some way perverse/illogical.



they are from where i'm standing, but the perverse thing is that the other bloke got off.


----------



## toggle (Oct 16, 2014)

marshall said:


> Can't get my head round why his g/f is standing by him, it's not for the money or WAG lifestyle as her dad's obviously loaded. How do you forgive that kind of behaviour? What are you telling yourself? How do you thnk it's going to go when he gets out? A very tainted kind of love.



it's not just blokes that go in for blaming the victim of rape for causing the circumstances of their attack. if you believe that having sex with an/near unconcious woman is the wo,an's fault, for putting yherself in that situation, then she's forgiving him for infidelity. assuming they have the kind of relationship where sleeping with other women isn't ok.

eta...

people want to believe rape is rare and is done by ugly strangers in alleys who rape cause that's the only way they can get sex. because that would be a better scenario than the actual real world, where you can't spot a rapist by their shifty looks.


----------



## Cid (Oct 16, 2014)

toggle said:


> that reasonable belief in her consent based on her going back to the room with him sounds a lot like saying 'she was asking for it'



It's actually a relatively recent reform iirc, the test used to be purely subjective. It is important that the reasonable element is there, the jury will have considered more than just the fact they went to the room together (would be stuff like the videos, statements by the porter etc). We can't see jury deliberations of course. There is an obvious problem with that - why should the complainant's behaviour leading up to the offence be relevant? Surely it is consent at the time that matters... The focus remains on the complainant's behaviour, not the defendant's. The problem here is with the wording of the relevant legislation; "whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents."

It's also a problem that once sufficient evidence (of a reasonable belief in consent) is adduced the prosecution must disprove it beyond reasonable doubt. Again this necessitates going through all the circumstances leading up to the event. It isn't easy to resolve, I think a stronger objective element is necessary, along with more guidance on the type of evidence needed to establish reasonable belief.


----------



## toggle (Oct 16, 2014)

Cid said:


> It's actually a relatively recent reform iirc, the test used to be purely subjective. It is important that the reasonable element is there, the jury will have considered more than just the fact they went to the room together (would be stuff like the videos, statements by the porter etc). We can't see jury deliberations of course. There is an obvious problem with that - *why should the complainant's behaviour leading up to the offence be relevant? Surely it is consent at the time that matters... The focus remains on the complainant's behaviour, not the defendant's. *The problem here is with the wording of the relevant legislation; "whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents."
> 
> It's also a problem that once sufficient evidence (of a reasonable belief in consent) is adduced the prosecution must disprove it beyond reasonable doubt. Again this necessitates going through all the circumstances leading up to the event. It isn't easy to resolve, I think a stronger objective element is necessary, along with more guidance on the type of evidence needed to establish reasonable belief.



I'm sure you can imagine what I want to shout from the rooftops about what I think of that.

I think this situation really does bring it home about attitudes to consent, both within the judicial system and in some sections in society. perhaps a lot of society.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 16, 2014)

They should 100% NOT take him back. I'm bemused by the idea that's even a possibility.  It's not as if he was still under contract, went down fo 3 months say and then resumed the rest of this career.  afaik they made a correct decision to kick him out when he was convicted.  They are now taking an _active step of_ _re-employing him*_. As with any offender he can look for jobs, subject to sex-offender restrictions, but choosing to allow him back from where he was sacked if a very bad idea.

* at least thinking about it.


----------



## Cid (Oct 16, 2014)

toggle said:


> I'm sure you can imagine what I want to shout from the rooftops about what I think of that.
> 
> I think this situation really does bring it home about attitudes to consent, both within the judicial system and in some sections in society. perhaps a lot of society.



This is legislation, it is attitudes to consent in parliament (specifically parliament in 2003). I think in this case the law has been applied correctly - i.e the judicial function of applying the law has been executed. Reading the case the judge gave all the proper directions to give effect to legislation as set down in parliament. The jury came to an opinion on the facts of the case based on that law. The only way to change it would be for parliament to create new legislation. It's possible that a court could make a declaration of incompatibility with the ECHR, but the Crown Court can't do that and the circumstances for a higher court to make such a ruling are unlikely to arise. The case calling the met to account over failure to investigate John Worboys properly is interesting (DSD and NVB v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2014] EWHC) , although the circumstances are really not the same as calling the government to account for drafting bad legislation (which would be going into parliamentary supremacy).

There has been a fair amount of academic criticism of the legislation... It is a difficult area to work out the law in and I think it requires a complete rethink as well as a major campaign opening a public discussion of what consent actually is. It's possible that a tiered set of rape offences would help (there are two GBH offences with differing mens rea and partial defences to murder where there isn't intent to kill/cause GBH, also iirc the recklessness for sexual assault is 'better'). I think it's difficult to remove the defence of a reasonable belief in consent, but it could be qualified to a more objective standard - a reasonable, sober and informed [as to the law] person. Further qualification on how to apply the law where the defendant knew the complainant was intoxicated might help. Also clarification as to 'all the circumstances'; I think some commentators regarded this more as the defendant's circumstances, something only to be used in exceptional circumstances (the defendant's inherent ability to understand what is reasonable; might relate to defendant's age or possible MH issues). At the moment it is for the jury to decide which of the circumstances are relevant, without further guidance it's very wide. 

There are also inherent problems with an adversarial system - difficult to get around that. I think the key starting points have to be a change in the legislation and the opening of public debate. Alongside holding the police to account for failure to properly investigate at any level (DSD above was obviously a particularly serious case).


----------



## toggle (Oct 16, 2014)

Cid said:


> . At the moment it is for the jury to decide which of the circumstances are relevant, without further guidance it's very wide.



and  obviously, juries are made up of people who hold the general biases and misunderstandings of consent that we see surrounding this case. a great many people are happy to dissect the behavior of the victim to determine whether or not her actions were, at best, negligent.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2014)

toggle said:


> and  obviously, juries are made up of people who hold the general biases and misunderstandings of consent that we see surrounding this case. a great many people are happy to dissect the behavior of the victim to determine whether or not her actions were, at best, negligent.



What would you advocate as an alternative?


----------



## toggle (Oct 16, 2014)

Athos said:


> What would you advocate as an alternative?



why assume I would want an alternative?


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2014)

Cid said:


> This is legislation, it is attitudes to consent in parliament (specifically parliament in 2003). I think in this case the law has been applied correctly - i.e the judicial function of applying the law has been executed. Reading the case the judge gave all the proper directions to give effect to legislation as set down in parliament. The jury came to an opinion on the facts of the case based on that law. The only way to change it would be for parliament to create new legislation. It's possible that a court could make a declaration of incompatibility with the ECHR, but the Crown Court can't do that and the circumstances for a higher court to make such a ruling are unlikely to arise. The case calling the met to account over failure to investigate John Worboys properly is interesting (DSD and NVB v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2014] EWHC) , although the circumstances are really not the same as calling the government to account for drafting bad legislation (which would be going into parliamentary supremacy).
> 
> There has been a fair amount of academic criticism of the legislation... It is a difficult area to work out the law in and I think it requires a complete rethink as well as a major campaign opening a public discussion of what consent actually is. It's possible that a tiered set of rape offences would help (there are two GBH offences with differing mens rea and partial defences to murder where there isn't intent to kill/cause GBH, also iirc the recklessness for sexual assault is 'better'). I think it's difficult to remove the defence of a reasonable belief in consent, but it could be qualified to a more objective standard - a reasonable, sober and informed [as to the law] person. Further qualification on how to apply the law where the defendant knew the complainant was intoxicated might help. Also clarification as to 'all the circumstances'; I think some commentators regarded this more as the defendant's circumstances, something only to be used in exceptional circumstances (the defendant's inherent ability to understand what is reasonable; might relate to defendant's age or possible MH issues). At the moment it is for the jury to decide which of the circumstances are relevant, without further guidance it's very wide.
> 
> There are also inherent problems with an adversarial system - difficult to get around that. I think the key starting points have to be a change in the legislation and the opening of public debate. Alongside holding the police to account for failure to properly investigate at any level (DSD above was obviously a particularly serious case).



You could make it a strict liability offence i.e. it is made out in the absence of consent.  This would mean that, in a case like this, the crown would only have to prove the victim's incapacity, and nothing more.  It has the attraction of requiring no analysis of the defendant's state of mind.  Arguably, another strength is that it prevents defendants from exploiting the benefit of the doubt regarding their own understanding; though, depending on your point of view, failing to afford the defendant the benefit f doubt could equally be described as a drawback.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2014)

toggle said:


> why assume I would want an alternative?



I got the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that, in highlighting the weaknesses of the _status quo_, you had an alternative in mind.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 16, 2014)

Cid said:


> I think it's difficult to remove the defence of a reasonable belief in consent, but it could be qualified to a more objective standard - a reasonable, sober and informed [as to the law] person.


Sober?! You can't take away the possibility of drunken consent. Not in our society.


----------



## Cid (Oct 16, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sober?! You can't take away the possibility of drunken consent. Not in our society.



As an objective test of the defendants ability to assess whether someone is able to consent. Would someone sober (I'm not even sure it's an important point, it may be implied in 'reasonable person') say that the defendant's belief that consent was given was reasonable?

In any case it doesn't relate to drunken consent (the case law on which is pretty dubious anyway), the defence only arises where it has been established that the claimant was incapable of forming consent.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 16, 2014)

Ah, I see. Misunderstood.


----------



## Cid (Oct 16, 2014)

Athos said:


> You could make it a strict liability offence i.e. it is made out in the absence of consent.  This would mean that, in a case like this, the crown would only have to prove the victim's incapacity, and nothing more.  It has the attraction of requiring no analysis of the defendant's state of mind.  Arguably, another strength is that it prevents defendants from exploiting the benefit of the doubt regarding their own understanding; though, depending on your point of view, failing to afford the defendant the benefit f doubt could equally be described as a drawback.



Strict liability might work, yeah... I think the situations where the claimant can't consent but to all outward appearances can consent would be rare (especially given the standards in the 'drunken consent is still consent' case).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2014)

Athos said:


> What would you advocate as an alternative?



I advocate that *you* get kicked in a buttock every time someone voices a social prejudice about rape.
It wouldn't solve anything, but it'd amuse me, because I'm a cunt!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2014)

Athos said:


> I got the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that, in highlighting the weaknesses of the _status quo_, you had an alternative in mind.



Surely the weakness of the _status quo_ means that any attempt to reform it will also be partial, weak and saturated in patriarchal assumptions? It's pretty difficult to formulate meaningful legislation with regard to sex and gender when there's such a mountain to climb in terms of institutional and social prejudices and assumptions.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I advocate that *you* get kicked in a buttock every time someone voices a social prejudice about rape.
> It wouldn't solve anything, but it'd amuse me, because I'm a cunt!


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Surely the weakness of the _status quo_ means that any attempt to reform it will also be partial, weak and saturated in patriarchal assumptions? It's pretty difficult to formulate meaningful legislation with regard to sex and gender when there's such a mountain to climb in terms of institutional and social prejudices and assumptions.



Yes, which is why I queried what I thought (wrongly, it seems) Toggle was saying i.e. that there was a better alternative to juries.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 16, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> I wonder what the chants on the terraces will be like.



You got five years for seconds up
And now you're gonna lose the cup

/rape not funny though


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 16, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> This is all just about shite sentencing.
> 
> Once someone's served their time they should be considered rehabilitated and able to continue their employment. If they're not rehabilitated they shouldn't be released. Evans clearly isn't if he still thinks he didn't rape the woman.
> 
> ...



It's not about shite sentencing at all. It's about whether he has brought his profession into disrepute and should no longer be a role model being paid silly money. If he served a further three years the same debate would crop up (albeit his career may have passed its sell by date by then anyway). Or at least that's what the debate in the media is.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 16, 2014)

mack said:


> More detailed info from this site..
> 
> http://chedevans.com/



A deeply unpleasant website. I think it makes him look worse (and his 'supporters'). For all their millions neither him or his gf's dad has a clue about PR.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 16, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> A deeply unpleasant website. I think it makes him look worse (and his 'supporters'). For all their millions neither him or his gf's dad has a clue about PR.


This is also an odd phrase to use, bottom of the front page:


> Finally it should be noted that the burden of proof in criminal law lies with the Prosecution and that in order to gain a conviction the Prosecution must prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that a crime was committed i.e. the Jury has to be sure an offence has taken place. Essentially, this means that following the submissions of the Prosecution if there remains any doubt that a crime has been committed the accused must be acquitted. It is not for the accused to prove his innocence.


Whilst legally true, it's a weird line to take when trying to win hearts and minds.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 16, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> You got five years for seconds up
> And now you're gonna lose the cup
> 
> /rape not funny though



It's going to be something to the tune of Do do do do, Dah dah dah dah by the Police, isn't it?


----------



## yardbird (Oct 17, 2014)

He was released  about 5.00 this morning.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29656157


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 17, 2014)

yardbird said:


> He was released  about 5.00 this morning.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29656157



Lock up yer daughters, an unrepentant rapist is on the loose.


----------



## belboid (Oct 17, 2014)

If Evans showed any remorse, or accepted his guilt and were willing to accept the need to change his behaviour, then I wouldn't have any problem with him rejoining United. But he doesn't.  And if United take him back now, they are effectively saying they agree with his version of events. They have consistently refused to address the issues around players and sexual irresponsibility, and seem to think it is only a matter of legal technicalities. There is a lot of opposition among Blades fans to resigning him, but they're still a minority.  How different it would be were Evans not their best player prior to being sent down is questionable.


----------



## belboid (Oct 17, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Lock up yer daughters, an unrepentant rapist is on the loose.


prick


----------



## Wilf (Oct 17, 2014)

belboid said:


> If Evans showed any remorse, or accepted his guilt and were willing to accept the need to change his behaviour, then I wouldn't have any problem with him rejoining United. But he doesn't.  And if United take him back now, they are effectively saying they agree with his version of events. They have consistently refused to address the issues around players and sexual irresponsibility, and seem to think it is only a matter of legal technicalities. There is a lot of opposition among Blades fans to resigning him, but they're still a minority.  How different it would be were Evans not their best player prior to being sent down is questionable.


 I agree with all that, except that re-signing a theoretically repentant Evans would be a step too far for me.  As I understand it he's gone, he has no contractual relationship with them.  It would be an active process of forgiveness that they haven't got the right to make.


----------



## toggle (Oct 17, 2014)

Athos said:


> I got the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that, in highlighting the weaknesses of the _status quo_, you had an alternative in mind.



the problem isn't in the system of justice per se, it's in the underlying attitudes in society that seek to blame women for being attacked. while victim blaming attitudes are so prevalent, then changing the rules of trial won't make much difference.


----------



## toggle (Oct 17, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Surely the weakness of the _status quo_ means that any attempt to reform it will also be partial, weak and saturated in patriarchal assumptions? It's pretty difficult to formulate meaningful legislation with regard to sex and gender when there's such a mountain to climb in terms of institutional and social prejudices and assumptions.



and attempts to change the current laws are interpreted by a loud and deeply unpleasent minority as a feminist conspiracy to imprision men when a woman has had post sex regret.


----------



## belboid (Oct 17, 2014)

Wilf said:


> I agree with all that, except that re-signing a theoretically repentant Evans would be a step too far for me.  As I understand it he's gone, he has no contractual relationship with them.  It would be an active process of forgiveness that they haven't got the right to make.


There was a thing in the paper yesterday about Jamie Oliver's 15 having taken on a child rapist. In that case the guy had fully admitted his guilt, and had accepted the need to change his behaviour and had undertaken all the courses etc that those accepting their guilt are meant to. He seemed (tho I obviously accept its hard to tell from a crappy newspaper report) to have genuinely changed.  That's fair enough, imo. There must be the possibility of accepting rehabilitation, or its a meaningless term.

None of that applies to Evans tho, as he thinks he is still innocent and unjustly persecuted.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 17, 2014)

belboid said:


> There was a thing in the paper yesterday about Jamie Oliver's 15 having taken on a child rapist. In that case the guy had fully admitted his guilt, and had accepted the need to change his behaviour and had undertaken all the courses etc that those accepting their guilt are meant to. He seemed (tho I obviously accept its hard to tell from a crappy newspaper report) to have genuinely changed.  That's fair enough, imo. There must be the possibility of accepting rehabilitation, or its a meaningless term.
> 
> None of that applies to Evans tho, as he thinks he is still innocent and unjustly persecuted.


 Yeah, again, I agree. It just seems wrong his old club actively taking steps to re-employ him.  Like you I wouldn't really have a problem with a repentant evans returning to another club.

Anyway, from the wording of this, it looks like they are edging towards taking him back (unless, I suspect, the publicty gets too bad).  Evans himself will be releasing a 'video statement' next week.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/...-leaves-prison-rape-sentence-sheffield-united


----------



## likesfish (Oct 17, 2014)

Thought  the omg Jamie helping a pedo story was off the guys trying to change ched or chod hasn't even in the best possible  light he behaved in a sordid manner can't belive his gf stood by him.
  but it was rape the fact he thinks he can make an appeal on the ground "she was a slapper of course she consented and anyway she didn't remember so it can't have been that bad"
   Apprantly his fight for "justice"makes him a role model

Ok a better role model than Adolf or jihad john


----------



## belboid (Oct 17, 2014)

The Sheffield Star has asked a variety of folks whether he should be allowed back. 

Guess how Nick Clegg came down.

'Undecided' - the spineless twat.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 17, 2014)

Wilf said:


> This is also an odd phrase to use, bottom of the front page:
> 
> Whilst legally true, it's a weird line to take when trying to win hearts and minds.



It's not even "legally true". Seeking convincing "beyond reasonable doubt" does NOT mean that "if there remains *any doubt *that a crime has been committed the accused must be acquitted" (my emphasis). It means that the jury needs to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that an offence occurred.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 17, 2014)

The only sensible line the Blades should be taking is 'Ched Evans is a convicted rapist and no longer employed by this club'.  If they wanted to be reasonable, they could add 'we understand he is planning an appeal. If he succeeds in this we will revisit the situation'. A healthy donation to a rape charit would help as well.


----------



## marty21 (Oct 17, 2014)

belboid said:


> If Evans showed any remorse, or accepted his guilt and were willing to accept the need to change his behaviour, then I wouldn't have any problem with him rejoining United. But he doesn't.  And if United take him back now, they are effectively saying they agree with his version of events. They have consistently refused to address the issues around players and sexual irresponsibility, and seem to think it is only a matter of legal technicalities. There is a lot of opposition among Blades fans to resigning him, but they're still a minority.  How different it would be were Evans not their best player prior to being sent down is questionable.


Agree, plus I didn't realise til now that they didn't actually sack him, just let his contract run out which was about 2 months after he went to prison , he was probably on maybe £5k a week , maybe more


----------



## belboid (Oct 17, 2014)

marty21 said:


> he was probably on maybe £5k a week , maybe more


20!


----------



## marty21 (Oct 17, 2014)

belboid said:


> 20!


FFS! So he got maybe £100k for that period after he got sentenced and the end of his contract ? Why didn't they sack a rapist?


----------



## ShakespearO (Oct 17, 2014)

If Ched and his buddy had kept schtum when questioned by the police - they both admitted having sex with the woman -  then there probably wouldn't have even been a case brought against them.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2014)

What is he arguing in his defence?


----------



## belboid (Oct 17, 2014)

ShakespearO said:


> If Ched and his buddy had kept schtum when questioned by the police - they both admitted having sex with the woman -  then there probably wouldn't have even been a case brought against them.


Except her evidence, the witnesses evidence, the phone evidence, the CCTV evidence....


----------



## Yelkcub (Oct 17, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> What is he arguing in his defence?



The website definitely doesn't make that clear. Someone earlier in the thread said their was video footage of him penetrating her while she was unconscious - anyone know if that is true? What defence can he possibly have if so?


----------



## Manter (Oct 17, 2014)

That website is unpleasant and incoherent.


----------



## belboid (Oct 17, 2014)

Yelkcub said:


> Someone earlier in the thread said their was video footage of him penetrating her while she was unconscious - anyone know if that is true? What defence can he possibly have if so?


mo, its nonsense.  There is video footage, iirr, of her being 'helped' upstairs while she is clearly far too pissed to walk - and, therefore, also clearly far too pissed to give informed consent.


----------



## belboid (Oct 17, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> What is he arguing in his defence?


That she said he could, but was too pissed to remember.


----------



## ShakespearO (Oct 17, 2014)

The victim consistently said she remembered nothing.  Their was no CCTV in the room. The security guard who listened at the door (how creepy is THAT for someone in a position of authority and trust!?) couldn't be sure what he heard.

Their statements were the only reliable evidence of any sexual intercourse, and then led the cops to the other friends who had been outside the window. 

I'm not defending their behaviour here, just pointing out the oft-quoted point of defence lawyers that the accused can often TALK themselves into a guilty verdict.


----------



## bmd (Oct 17, 2014)

belboid said:


> The Sheffield Star has asked a variety of folks whether he should be allowed back.
> 
> Guess how Nick Clegg came down.
> 
> 'Undecided' - the spineless twat.



Unfucking real. Can't he just have an opinion for once.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 17, 2014)

ShakespearO said:


> Their statements were the only reliable evidence of any sexual intercourse, and then led the cops to the other friends who had been outside the window.
> 
> I'm not defending their behaviour here, just pointing out the oft-quoted point of defence lawyers that the accused can often TALK themselves into a guilty verdict.


 OUtside the room _and filming_, iirc.


----------



## belboid (Oct 17, 2014)

There was CCTV footage which showed her being picked up (literally) by McDonald. I cant remember if he was in the CCTV of her being carried upstairs.  There were the phone records and the other witnesses that placed at him at the scene.  If he had tried to say 'I just popped over, and saw she was drunk, so hung around a couple of hours then left' - _maybe_ he'd have got away with it, but I'm doubtful.


----------



## belboid (Oct 17, 2014)

Wilf said:


> OUtside the room _and filming_, iirc.


trying to film, i think they fucked it up


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 17, 2014)

bmd said:


> Unfucking real. Can't he just have an opinion for once.




it'll be on his gravestone 'undecided'


----------



## Yelkcub (Oct 17, 2014)

Papers reported his mate texted him 'I've got a bird' from the cab. I guess they both knew the usual drill from there.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2014)

belboid said:


> trying to film, i think they fucked it up



So where did the supposed film of him penetrating her come from?


----------



## Cid (Oct 17, 2014)

All the information is in the summary of the appeals case I posted upthread. Here it is again. 

I can only find the actual report on sites you need to log in to but could probably sort a pdf. The summary is pretty thorough though.


----------



## belboid (Oct 17, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> So where did the supposed film of him penetrating her come from?


they dont really exist. His 'friend' was trying to film through the window, but didn't, it seems from the court reports, get anything clear


----------



## toggle (Oct 17, 2014)

belboid said:


> There was CCTV footage which showed her being picked up (literally) by McDonald. I cant remember if he was in the CCTV of her being carried upstairs.  There were the phone records and the other witnesses that placed at him at the scene.  If he had tried to say 'I just popped over, and saw she was drunk, so hung around a couple of hours then left' - _maybe_ he'd have got away with it, but I'm doubtful.



i think the point was that he didn't think that there was any problem saying what he did, because he didn't think he had done anyhting wrong. he's far from the only bloke who thinks that having sex with someone who is too drunk to remember and incapable of saying no to them is completely acceptable behavior. people who think that sit on juries as well. as do people who may think ti's wrong, but wrongness as in poor behavior, not something that should be considered rape.


----------



## belboid (Oct 17, 2014)

toggle said:


> i think the point was that he didn't think that there was any problem saying what he did, because he didn't think he had done anyhting wrong. he's far from the only bloke who thinks that having sex with someone who is too drunk to remember and incapable of saying no to them is completely acceptable behavior. people who think that sit on juries as well. as do people who may think ti's wrong, but wrongness as in poor behavior, not something that should be considered rape.


There's a lot of truth in that. But, what really did for him tho was that he lied. He claimed she had been able to walk perfectly well, and that she was only a wee bit drunk, when the footage showed she was completely out of it. I think it's probably almost exactly as you said, in his mind, but when it came to giving evidence and making statements, he had to minimise her drunkenness to excuse his own behaviour. Doing that indicates a level of awareness that what he did was overstepping the boundaries.


----------



## yardbird (Oct 17, 2014)

I've just listened to Gordon Taylor talking about Evans.
Ffs he's a cunt too


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2014)

toggle said:


> the problem isn't in the system of justice per se, it's in the underlying attitudes in society that seek to blame women for being attacked. while victim blaming attitudes are so prevalent, then changing the rules of trial won't make much difference.



I agree.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 17, 2014)

Having been a 20 something bloke who managed to get a girl back to my hotel room who passed out on my bed.
 My first thoughts went great sexy time or invite my mates for twos up but well that's the end of the night.
  So fuck him and his so called supporters.


If my barely human 20 something fuckwit could figure out you don't fuck unconscious women he deserves to stay in jail till he figures


----------



## 1927 (Oct 17, 2014)

I haven't read the whole thread so apologise if this hasn't been mentioned earlier.

The Birmingham 6 were found guilty and expressed no remorse, would everyone hold the same opinion about their lack of remorse in light of what we know now.?

There is something about this case that doesn't ring true with me, not least the fact that it is alleged that the victim had previously made rape allegations against 2 other prominent sportsman , one a cricketer and one a rugby league player!


----------



## 1927 (Oct 17, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Having been a 20 something bloke who managed to get a girl back to my hotel room who passed out on my bed.
> My first thoughts went great sexy time or invite my mates for twos up but well that's the end of the night.
> So fuck him and his so called supporters.
> 
> ...


It has never been alleged she was unconscious!


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2014)

1927 said:


> I haven't read the whole thread so apologise if this hasn't been mentioned earlier.
> 
> The Birmingham 6 were found guilty and expressed no remorse, would everyone hold the same opinion about their lack of remorse in light of what we know now.?
> 
> There is something about this case that doesn't ring true with me, not least the fact that it is alleged that the victim had previously made rape allegations against 2 other prominent sportsman , one a cricketer and one a rugby league player!



No.  Because we now know the Birmingham Six were innocent.  Evans is not.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 17, 2014)

Athos said:


> No.  Because we now know the Birmingham Six were innocent.  Evans is not.


How do you know that? Were you there?


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2014)

1927 said:


> How do you know that? Were you there?



How do I know the Birmingham Six are innocent?  Or how do I know that Evans is guilty?

With regard to the former, it's based upon the fact that their convictions were eventually quashed; with regard to the latter, it's based partly on the conviction, and partly on my own assessment of the evidence.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 17, 2014)

Athos said:


> How do I know the Birmingham Six are innocent?  Or how do I know that Evans is guilty?
> 
> With regard to the former, it's based upon the fact that their convictions were *eventually* quashed; with regard to the latter, it's based partly on the conviction, and partly on my own assessment of the evidence.


Can you see the problem here?


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2014)

1927 said:


> Can you see the problem here?



Can you see the problem with assuming that those who are convicted might be innocent, in the absence of some powerful evidence?


----------



## killer b (Oct 17, 2014)

I am amazed to see you holding such a controversial view, 1927. So, so surprised.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 17, 2014)

Athos said:


> Can you see the problem with assuming that those who are convicted might be innocent, in the absence of some powerful evidence?


Yes. Now you can answer!


----------



## toggle (Oct 17, 2014)

1927 said:


> I haven't read the whole thread so apologise if this hasn't been mentioned earlier.
> 
> The Birmingham 6 were found guilty and expressed no remorse, would everyone hold the same opinion about their lack of remorse in light of what we know now.?
> 
> There is something about this case that doesn't ring true with me, not least the fact that it is alleged that the victim had previously made rape allegations against 2 other prominent sportsman , one a cricketer and one a rugby league player!



and a credible source for this attack on Evans victim?


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2014)

1927 said:


> Yes. Now you can answer!



I see as the lesser of the two problems.


----------



## killer b (Oct 17, 2014)

toggle said:


> and a credible source for this attack on Evans victim?


I expect he's _playing devils advocate._


----------



## topher25 (Oct 17, 2014)

Not to derail the thread but how might it be viewed if a person had actively encouraged role play that involved them being drugged with ketamine and then penetrated whilst under the effects but then went onto report it to the police as a rape after the acrimonious break down of the relationship? 

A friend is in this very situation and given the coverage this case is getting he is shitting himself. Is consent withdrawn despite the fact it was given(with proof by way of texts and an admission by the "victim") prior to the incident.


----------



## andysays (Oct 17, 2014)

1927 said:


> I haven't read the whole thread so apologise if this hasn't been mentioned earlier.
> 
> The Birmingham 6 were found guilty and expressed no remorse, would everyone hold the same opinion about their lack of remorse in light of what we know now.?
> 
> There is something about this case that doesn't ring true with me, not least the fact that it is alleged that the victim had previously made rape allegations against 2 other prominent sportsman , one a cricketer and one a rugby league player!



Leaving aside your attempted slur against Evans' victim, the Birmingham 6 were victims of a fit up, involving both fabrication and suppression of evidence. They were also victims of assault at the hands of police and prison officers.

They were imprisoned for the 17 years it took them to clear their names, and only released when the crown decided not to contest their second appeal, ie when they were legally declared innocent.

For whatever reason, you have choosen a particularly inappropriate case to compare with Evans', unless you're trying to suggest that he too was fitted up.


----------



## killer b (Oct 17, 2014)

He chose it 'cause he's an MRA wanker and a nudge-nudge rape apologist, I'd guess.


----------



## Cid (Oct 17, 2014)

1927 said:


> I haven't read the whole thread so apologise if this hasn't been mentioned earlier.
> 
> The Birmingham 6 were found guilty and expressed no remorse, would everyone hold the same opinion about their lack of remorse in light of what we know now.?
> 
> There is something about this case that doesn't ring true with me, not least the fact that it is alleged that the victim had previously made rape allegations against 2 other prominent sportsman , one a cricketer and one a rugby league player!



I wasn't aware that Ched had alledged he was beaten, deprived of food and water, interrogated for 12 hours, subjected to a mock execution, that his statement was unreliable, that dubious forensic evidence was used, that evidence was suppressed or fabricated etc.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 17, 2014)

1927 said:


> There is something about this case that doesn't ring true with me, not least the fact that it is alleged that the victim had previously made rape allegations against 2 other prominent sportsman , one a cricketer and one a rugby league player!


You fucking what?! Alleged by who? 

Do you know how hard it is to get a rape conviction? Particularly when your rapist is famous. You disgust me, you rape apologist freak.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 18, 2014)

The facts in the Birmingham 6 (and all those other cases of injustice) were always disputed by those victims and their supporters...it was  prooving the police lied that finally won them their freedom.
In this case it is not so much the facts that are disputed (although his claim that she was able to walk of her own accord was shown to be untrue by cctv footage) but the interpretation of the facts and the fact that his mate wasnt convicted.
He had sex with someone so pissed they couldnt walk unaided and there were reports that a video filmed on a phone showed the woman was unconscious when he was having sex with her...imo a person can not consent to sex if they aint awake and if she had consented to sex before she passed out then her consent is null and void.
Therefore he had sex with her without her permission...therefore he raped her.
I honestly do not understand why his conviction is controversial. 
As for him being allowed to work...theres plenty of good kind people who are unable to work for lots of reasons so I dont see what makes him any more deserving of a right to work that any of those people.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 18, 2014)

1927 said:


> I haven't read the whole thread so apologise if this hasn't been vermentioned earlier.
> 
> The Birmingham 6 were found guilty and expressed no remorse, would everyone hold the same opinion about their lack of remorse in light of what we know now.?
> 
> There is something about this case that doesn't ring true with me, not least the fact that it is alleged that the victim had previously made rape allegations against 2 other prominent sportsman , one a cricketer and one a rugby league player!


Rape is under reported and under convicted. Irish terror suspects in the 1970s England were convicted on little or no evidence, often after having it beaten out of them. Slight difference between the cases?  Oh, and fuck off.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2014)

1927 said:


> ... There is something about this case that doesn't ring true with me, not least the fact that it is alleged that the victim had previously made rape allegations against 2 other prominent sportsman , one a cricketer and one a rugby league player!



Is there any evidence of these alleged rape allegations?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2014)

1927 said:


> How do you know that? Were you there?



How does he know that?
He knows about Evans' guilt because of the weight of evidence that Evans lied in court (something that innocent people don't *tend* to do) about something that was easily disprovable.
He knows about the Birmingham Six's innocence because later examinations of the evidence used to convict saw much of it proved to be unsafe or completely fictitious, and part of the forensic evidence was shown to have had an alternative explanation that was dealt with in the testimony of the accused.

It must be shit to live in your world, always so worried that a woman might "get one over" on a man, or even get justice.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2014)

1927 said:


> Can you see the problem here?



You think that the weight of evidence that Evans lied is "eventually" going to be quashed? Unlikely.
The Birmingham Six, on the other hand, well, so much checking and testing of the original evidence proved, for example, later additions to supposedly -contemporaneous statements; torture of the accused; manipulation of forensic evidence, etc that the likelihood was *always* there that such a weight would accumulate that the state would be forced to quash the "guilty" verdicts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2014)

killer b said:


> I am amazed to see you holding such a controversial view, 1927. So, so surprised.



I would say "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit", but I happen to agree with your "surprise".


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 18, 2014)

Reading some of the message boards and elsewhere from people querying Ched's conviction looks a lot like people are desperate for what Ched did not to be rape, almost like they're the ones on trial as well. It's a crying shame that he didn't hold his hands up and said he was wrong because a lot of people would have understood what rape is instead of now trying to justify that sleeping with drunk girls is ok.

If he'd admitted his guilt I'd reluctantly have him back at United (after all that's what the justice system is there for) but I'd rather him not come back. As it stands now I don't want him anywhere near my club for moral reasons and for the entirely selfish reason of the damage it will do to the club and the stick we'll get forever (from the 'family club' to the 'rapist club').

Some of the shit I've read on forums really is making me ashamed. When Sheff Weds fans started a message board thread vily attacking Charlie Webster it caused uproar with United fans. Now Charlie Webster (sexual assault campaigner and patron of Sheff Utd) says she can't continue her role at United if Ched comes back all of a sudden she's the enemy (obviously message boards don't represent everyone and there's plenty of sensible views on there as well).

Glad I'm not in the country right now and have to deal with all this shit (my mum's got my season ticket so she can deal with it) cos there's already been rape chants last Saturday from a minority at the back of the Kop, who wants to be associated with that?


----------



## Zabo (Oct 18, 2014)

"Attempts by the former professional footballer, Ched Evans, to have his rape conviction quashed are to be fast-tracked through the watchdog that examines possible miscarriages of justice.

The revelation that the Criminal Cases Review Commission is to make his case a priority is likely to see the ex-Sheffield United striker – who was released from prison on Friday after serving half of a five-year sentence for raping a 19-year-old woman – engulfed in fresh controversy.

It would normally take around 18 months for the commission, which has a staff of 90, to examine a claim of miscarriage of justice. Instead, the commission has taken the unusual decision to examine Evans’s case within weeks."

In full

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/18/legal-watchdog-fast-tracks-ched-evans-rape-inquiry


----------



## Dowie (Oct 18, 2014)

1927 said:


> There is something about this case that doesn't ring true with me, not least the fact that it is alleged that the victim had previously made rape allegations against 2 other prominent sportsman , one a cricketer and one a rugby league player!



Source please? Given that her name isn't even public the idea that she could easily be linked to previous false accusations seems pretty dubious at best. Sounds more like a nasty rumour being used to try and discredit her tbh...


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2014)

Dowie said:


> Source please? Given that her name isn't even public the idea that she could easily be linked to previous false accusations seems pretty dubious at best. Sounds more like a nasty rumour being used to try and discredit her tbh...



Her name is all over the internet.  As are these unsubstantiated claims about her; to date I've seen no evidence at all of the alleged previous allegations.


----------



## Dowie (Oct 18, 2014)

CyberRose said:


> Now Charlie Webster (sexual assault campaigner and patron of Sheff Utd) says she can't continue her role at United if Ched comes back all of a sudden she's the enemy (obviously message boards don't represent everyone and there's plenty of sensible views on there as well).



Sad thing about this fall out from this case re: whether he gets to play football again is that it seems to be mostly down to weighing up the negative publicity/PR etc... If the story hadn't had much exposure of campaigning then I'd wager he'd already have a new contract with them.

Even Charile Webster has shot herself in the foot a bit - huffington post mentions she previously tweeted the following re: Mike Tyson _"Just bumped into Mike Tyson in the hotel lobby as I was randomly talking about him! I chickened out on asking for a photo...damn."_ seemingly not having any issues with him also being a convicted rapist.

The media do seem to have double standards when it comes to sex offenders/rapists etc.. the John Peel plaque at the BBC too - if he was alive today he'd be getting grilled by Operation Yewtree  detectives... but because he is still considered cool they've decided to gloss over his past. Some people seem to only have incentive to show some principles when they've been pressured into it...


----------



## Dowie (Oct 18, 2014)

Athos said:


> Her name is all over the internet.  As are these unsubstantiated claims about her; to date I've seen no evidence at all of the alleged previous allegations.



Her name might well be available online - it is a big leap to go from that to also somehow linking her to other false accusations thus I'd quite like to see the source.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 18, 2014)

Probably...


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2014)

Dowie said:


> Her name might well be available online - it is a big leap to go from that to also somehow linking her to other false accusations thus I'd quite like to see the source.



That's what I'm saying.  The only source is unsubstantiated internet rumour.


----------



## toggle (Oct 18, 2014)

Athos said:


> That's what I'm saying.  The only source is unsubstantiated internet rumour.



i'll take your word for that. i really don't think that i want to try to stomach delving into the kind of places where it's ok to 'name and shame' rape victims and make up shit about them to look for where that shit came from


----------



## free spirit (Oct 18, 2014)

I have real problems with the law that's being used in this case, and always have done since it was framed a decade or so ago.

Under UK law, anyone who gets blind drunk voluntarily is still held to be legally responsible for any actions they take while blind drunk, from driving a car to getting involved in a drunken fight to vandalism to murder etc. being blind drunk is not a defence against any charges.

Under this law though, voluntarily getting yourself drunk apparently does remove your legal right to consent to have sex with another consenting adult, and it's up to the police and then a jury to decide for you and your partner if you were too drunk to have given your consent legally if the next day you can't really remember what happened and somehow the police get involved (in this case according to Ched Evans site, the initial contact with the police related to the lost handbag and phone).

I've never understood how that was meant to work in practice, sure if someone's actually passed out then they obviously can't consent, but if you're both drunk, but both with it enough to say walk from a taxi into a hotel, hold a conversation etc. then how is anyone supposed to know that the woman that's saying they want to have sex with you isn't actually legally capable of making that decision, so you should both just ignore those drunken urges and maybe have a nice cup of tea instead.

How the fuck is that supposed to work? Should everyone on a night out be carrying breathalysers with them, and asking their potential partners to please just breath into this tube and sign this consent form in triplicate in front of a sober witness before they can consider having sex?

I know people who can spend hours dancing and getting up to all sorts of stuff, holding perfectly lucid conversations etc then in the morning they can't remember anything about the last few hours of the night, but at the time you'd not know that would be the case.

By this logic I've probably been raped myself  half dozen or so times without realising it - I thought I was having drunk but consensual sex with someone I fancied, but apparently I must have been being raped if I can't entirely remember how I ended up in bed with them, or at what point I actually consented.

Here's the CPS guidance on this issue.



> The question of capacity to consent is particularly relevant when a complainant is intoxicated by alcohol or affected by drugs.
> 
> In _R v Bree_ [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. Further, they identified that capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, depends on the facts of the case.
> 
> ...



So it's essentially all down to the judgement of the police, cps, judge and jury as to whether someone was just drunk, but still able to consent, or had crossed the line into being too drunk to consent. They could be literally begging you for sex, but the police, CPS could decide that no they were actually too pissed, so you've raped them.

It's an utterly shit law drafted by puritanical politicians who've always hated the drunken debauchery that many of us engage in / have engaged in most weekends at different stages in our lives, that goes on every weekend in most city centres across the country, a good proportion of which would involve people who would both be classed by this law as being too drunk to consent to sex, but yet they do the same thing week after week because actually that's their choice of how they want to live their lives at that point in their lives.

So, I hope Ched Evans does appeal this, and I hope that it ends up with the law being changed or significantly clarified to one that actually makes sense and doesn't remove the rights of drunk people to have consensual sex without worrying that any random police involvement afterwards could result in one of them being charged with rape just because you were both drunk.

Not that he's not a sleazy fuck for what he did, but IMO nobody should be getting imprisoned for rape when the woman involved has actually consented just because the police later decide that in their opinion she must have been too drunk to give informed consent (assuming the woman was capable of walking, talking etc rather then being passed out or virtually passed out).


----------



## weltweit (Oct 18, 2014)

I agree with Heseltine from Any Questions, he has served his sentence so he should be able to work again, however footballers are role models for kids, and if I were a football manager I would not hire him!


----------



## free spirit (Oct 18, 2014)

This is the CCTV footage of the woman walking into the hotel.

Now I've watched a lot of drunk people in my time, and she really doesn't seem that drunk to me on that footage. Certainly not drunk enough for me to think that I should assume she wasn't legally entitled to consent to having sex due to being too drunk to consent.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 18, 2014)

free spirit said:


> being blind drunk is not a defence against any charges


You answered your question yourself. 

If you're in any doubt over whether someone is too drunk to consent, then don't. It's really not a grey area. As someone who's shagged people numerous times when pissed, I can tell you there was a fucking big difference on the two occasions I was raped.


----------



## ShakespearO (Oct 18, 2014)

I've just seen the CCTV footage of the couple entering the hotel - from the Ched Evans website - and the woman would appear to be able to walk perfectly reasonably. She is seen carrying a large pizza box one-handed in very high heels. 

This doesn't mean she wasn't raped, but the idea that she was so drunk that was incapable of giving consent is difficult to sustain without evidence of her taking further drinks after this footage.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 18, 2014)

trashpony said:


> You answered your question yourself.
> 
> If you're in any doubt over whether someone is too drunk to consent, then don't. It's really not a grey area. As someone who's shagged people numerous times when pissed, I can tell you there was a fucking big difference on the two occasions I was raped.


but in this case there's no suggestion or evidence that she didn't consent, just that it was later decided that she legally wasn't capable of consenting through being too drunk.

as I understand it anyway.


----------



## JTG (Oct 18, 2014)

I was under the impression that the fact she was unconscious at the time was somehow significant


----------



## free spirit (Oct 18, 2014)

and what I was saying about being drunk not being a defence against any other legal charges is that this is the only situation legally where the person being drunk removes their presumed legal responsibility for their actions / decisions / actually removes their legal ability to decide what they do and do not want to do with their own body at that point in time.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 18, 2014)

JTG said:


> I was under the impression that the fact she was unconscious at the time was somehow significant


where's the evidence of that?

I did a bit of reading around before making that post, and haven't found anything to indicate that she was passed out when it happened.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 18, 2014)

free spirit said:


> but in this case there's no suggestion or evidence that she didn't consent, just that it was later decided that she legally wasn't capable of consenting through being too drunk.
> 
> as I understand it anyway.


Are you saying that she was lying? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.


----------



## andysays (Oct 18, 2014)

free spirit said:


> and what I was saying about being drunk not being a defence against any other legal charges is that this is the only situation legally where the person being drunk removes their presumed legal responsibility for their actions / decisions / actually removes their legal ability to decide what they do and do not want to do with their own body at that point in time.



What are you talking about?


> being drunk not being a defence against any other legal charges



You are aware that being raped is not actually a criminal offence, right?

And given that none of us are party to exactly what went on in the court or the jury room, I'd be wary as fuck about accepting anything from the Ched Evans website at face value. Is that where the mysterious allegations about the victim supposedly making previous "false accusations" came from?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 18, 2014)

trashpony said:


> Are you saying that she was lying? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.


no, I'm saying that from what I've read she said she couldn't really remember what happened, and all the charges were based on the statements made voluntarily by the 2 footballers who were then prosecuted due to the police deciding that the woman was too drunk to have legally consented.

are you saying that she made a clear statement that she didn't consent? If so, then that obviously changes the situation.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 18, 2014)

andysays said:


> Is that where the mysterious allegations about the victim supposedly making previous "false accusations" came from?


fuck knows, nothing to do with me so don't lump that one on me.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 18, 2014)

trashpony said:


> Are you saying that she was lying? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.





> Mr Philpotts said: "The prosecution say that she did not truly consent to that activity.
> 
> "She was in no fit state to consent.
> 
> "And we say that neither man reasonably believed she was consenting."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-17677969

Even the prosecution didn't say that she didn't consent, their case was that she was in no fit state to consent.


----------



## andysays (Oct 18, 2014)

free spirit said:


> fuck knows, nothing to do with me so don't lump that one on me.



Well, you certainly appear to be treating info from that site uncritically as if it is of some value in reaching any sort of judgement on either this particular case or the wider legal position.

The best thing that can be said of you is that you're extremely naive and being taken for a mug - please don't take the rest of us for mugs, coz it's not going to work.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 18, 2014)

free spirit said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-17677969
> 
> Even the prosecution didn't say that she didn't consent, their case was that she was in no fit state to consent.


I really don't know what you're arguing here. If she was in no fit state to consent and neither man could have reasonably believed she consented, then she didn't consent. 

If you're in any doubt whether a woman is consenting, don't fuck her. It's not that difficult. Really.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 18, 2014)

andysays said:


> Well, you certainly appear to be treating info from that site uncritically as if it is of some value in reaching any sort of judgement on either this particular case or the wider legal position.
> 
> The best thing that can be said of you is that you're extremely naive and being taken for a mug - please don't take the rest of us for mugs, coz it's not going to work.


I've checked some of his site out, I've also checked out the court reports linked from this thread, and multiple other reports - and I checked the other reports first, then verified the points made on his site elsewhere.

But forget this specific case if you want, what do you actually think of the law as it's framed, and the CPS guidance quoted above. Do you support a law that could result in people being sent down for rape in situations where the other person has actually consented, but is later judged to not have been capable of consenting, and has no real memory of the situation themselves?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 18, 2014)

weltweit said:


> I agree with Heseltine from Any Questions, he has served his sentence so he should be able to work again, however footballers are role models for kids, and if I were a football manager I would not hire him!



I wonder, if he were a teacher, how many parents would be happy for him to teach their kids. I think he would rightly kiss his teaching career goodbye. Should be the same for a footballer.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 18, 2014)

trashpony said:


> I really don't know what you're arguing here. If she was in no fit state to consent and neither man could have reasonably believed she consented, then she didn't consent.
> 
> If you're in any doubt whether a woman is consenting, don't fuck her. It's not that difficult. Really.


10 minutes earlier she's seen on the cctv linked to walking into the hotel, have a look, does she seem in such a state that you'd automatically say that she should be judged as being in no fit state to consent to sex?

There doesn't seem to have been any doubt in the footballers minds that she was clearly consenting, and a willing partner in what was going on, the prosecution case was based on her being too drunk to have legally given her consent (as far as I can tell, if anyone has links that say otherwise please post them up).


----------



## andysays (Oct 18, 2014)

free spirit said:


> 10 minutes earlier she's seen on the cctv linked to walking into the hotel, have a look, does she seem in such a state that you'd automatically say that she should be judged as being in no fit state to consent to sex?
> 
> There doesn't seem to have been any doubt in the footballers minds that she was clearly consenting, and a willing partner in what was going on, the prosecution case was based on her being too drunk to have legally given her consent (as far as I can tell, if anyone has links that say otherwise please post them up).



The prosecution case appears to have convinced the jury, who were able to judge all the evidence in the case, rather than the various snippets Ched Evans has seen fit to emphasise.

On the whole, I'm more inclined to go with their judgement than either his or yours, TBH...


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 18, 2014)

free spirit said:


> 10 minutes earlier she's seen on the cctv linked to walking into the hotel, have a look, does she seem in such a state that you'd automatically say that she should be judged as being in no fit state to consent to sex?



Appearances can be deceptive. People can have blackouts when they are totally pissed up and do things they have no recollection of the next day. Never been there?


----------



## trashpony (Oct 18, 2014)

free spirit said:


> There doesn't seem to have been any doubt in the footballers minds that she was clearly consenting


I don't know if you're being willfully stupid but that's exactly what the prosecution argued (successfully).


----------



## free spirit (Oct 18, 2014)

andysays said:


> The prosecution case appears to have convinced the jury, who were able to judge all the evidence in the case, rather than the various snippets Ched Evans has seen fit to emphasise.
> 
> On the whole, I'm more inclined to go with their judgement than either his or yours, TBH...


Yes, convinced the jury that he was guilty according to the way the law is now framed, and presumably the way the law was explained to them in court by the judge etc.

Which would be why I'm mainly attacking the way the law is now framed and interpreted, and particularly querying whether that CCTV footage really shows a woman who was obviously too drunk to consent to sex. If she was legally too drunk to consent to sex, then so are probably the majority of women and men who stumble out of the UK's clubs every weekend.

I support the juries decision to find the other defendant not guilty, but also have real problems with the police and CPS decision to prosecute him in the first place.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 18, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Appearances can be deceptive. People can have blackouts when they are totally pissed up and do things they have no recollection of the next day. Never been there?


of course I have, but whatever I do in those periods I'm still held legally responsible for.

and I'm well aware that I can still seem perfectly lucid, able to walk, hold conversations, dance etc etc while twatted, so I don't really know how someone else should be considered able to judge that I'm actually far too pissed to be capable of deciding that actually I quite fancy a shag, and that if they took me up on that then they should be held to have raped me, or vice versa.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 18, 2014)

free spirit said:


> of course I have, but whatever I do in those periods I'm still held legally responsible for.
> 
> and I'm well aware that I can still seem perfectly lucid, able to walk, hold conversations, dance etc etc while twatted, so I don't really know how someone else should be considered able to judge that I'm actually far too pissed to be capable of deciding that actually I quite fancy a shag, and that if they took me up on that then they should be held to have raped me, or vice versa.



Isn't that why the first footballer got off, but the guy who turned up later and took advantage didn't? On the balance of probabilities she consented to sex with the first footballer and went back to the hotel with him, but there is no evidence that she could consent to the second bloke turning up later on in the evening.


----------



## bmd (Oct 18, 2014)

free spirit said:


> Yes, convinced the jury that he was guilty according to the way the law is now framed, and presumably the way the law was explained to them in court by the judge etc.
> 
> Which would be why I'm mainly attacking the way the law is now framed and interpreted, and particularly querying whether that CCTV footage really shows a woman who was obviously too drunk to consent to sex. If she was legally too drunk to consent to sex, then so are probably the majority of women and men who stumble out of the UK's clubs every weekend.
> 
> I support the juries decision to find the other defendant not guilty, but also have real problems with the police and CPS decision to prosecute him in the first place.



What seems to be confusing some people is the bit about having sex when pissed. If you are so pissed you're barely conscious then are you able to give consent? If you are so pissed you're unconscious then clearly you're not. This case seems to have drawn a more visible line. Well, I hope so anyway.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 18, 2014)

free spirit said:


> of course I have, but whatever I do in those periods I'm still held legally responsible for.



But that implies that someone in that hotel room was somehow not legally responsible for their action? I'm not aware that anyone, aside from Evans, broke the law. Certainly not the victim of the rape whom the jury decided had consensual sex with one defendant, but was raped by the second.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 18, 2014)

trashpony said:


> I don't know if you're being willfully stupid but that's exactly what the prosecution argued (successfully).


This is the judges instructions to the jury.



> "A complainant consents if, and only if, she has the freedom and capacity to make a choice, and she exercised that choice to agree to sexual intercourse."
> 
> He then addressed the implications and consequences of the evidence that the complainant had been drinking and had possibly taken cocaine. He said:
> 
> ...


source

This case was pretty much entirely about whether the woman had the legal capacity to consent, or was too drunk to legally consent, not whether she actually did consent as she apparently couldn't remember either way, and both defendants stated that she had, and were the only other direct witnesses.

Although the actual decision of the jury seems a bit perverse on that point to me, as either she was too drunk to consent, or she wasn't.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> Although the actual decision of the jury seems a bit perverse on that point to me, as either she was too drunk to consent, or she wasn't.



You're saying that levels of intoxication can't vary over time?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

brogdale said:


> But that implies that someone in that hotel room was somehow not legally responsible for their action? I'm not aware that anyone, aside from Evans, broke the law. Certainly not the victim of the rape whom the jury decided had consensual sex with one defendant, but was raped by the second.


the woman in this case was judged not to have been legally capable of giving consent to have sex with Ched Evans.

and the woman had previously been judged by the police and CPS as having not been legally capable of consenting to sex with the other defendant either, though the jury apparently disagreed, but that demonstrates how the CPS were interpreting the law.

If they'd actually decided that no consent was given at all for Ched to have sex with her, then presumably both defendants would have been prosecuted for attempting to pervert the course of justice / perjury for both lying in court that she had consented.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> 10 minutes earlier she's seen on the cctv linked to walking into the hotel, have a look, does she seem in such a state that you'd automatically say that she should be judged as being in no fit state to consent to sex?
> *
> There doesn't seem to have been any doubt in the footballers minds* that she was clearly consenting, and a willing partner in what was going on, the prosecution case was based on her being too drunk to have legally given her consent (as far as I can tell, if anyone has links that say otherwise please post them up).


How can you possibly know that?
Maybe he knew she couldnt consent but didnt give a shit.
Maybe he is simply a lying rapist piece of shit.
You weren't on the jury so you weren't privvy to all the info needed to make a judgement.
This aint a case of someone being fitted up by corrupt police so fuck knows why so many people are presuming he is an innocent victim


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

brogdale said:


> You're saying that levels of intoxication can't vary over time?


well yes, but not significantly in the space of half an hour or so, particularly where no alcohol had been drunk for about 2 hours by that stage, and a pizza had been bought and eaten etc.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> How can you possibly know that?
> Maybe he knew she couldnt consent but didnt give a shit.
> Maybe he is simply a lying rapist piece of shit.
> You weren't on the jury so you weren't privvy to all the info needed to make a judgement.
> This aint a case of someone being fitted up by corrupt police so fuck knows why so many people are presuming he is an innocent victim


well, I started with the idea that the prosecution hadn't argued that point, at least not as far as I can find, although I've so far only read the appeal courts judgement documents when refusing the right to appeal, rather than the original court transcripts.

usually I'd assume that the prosecution would at least have made that argument in court if they thought that was the case, but both defendants statements were pretty unequivocal about it.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> well yes, but not significantly in the space of half an hour or so, particularly where no alcohol had been drunk for about 2 hours by that stage, and a pizza had been bought and eaten etc.


 The jury, who heard the evidence, thought differently.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> well, I started with the idea that the prosecution hadn't argued that point, at least not as far as I can find, although I've so far only read the appeal courts judgement documents when refusing the right to appeal, rather than the original court transcripts.
> 
> usually I'd assume that the prosecution would at least have made that argument in court if they thought that was the case, but both defendants statements were pretty unequivocal about it.


So because of what was not argued by the prosecution you assume to know what was in his head at the time?
So in reality your statement that "there seemed to be no doubt in the footballers mind that she was consenting" is actually bollocks ... it is not a fact just your opinion which you have come to without having heard all the evidence and testimony which the jury did


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

brogdale said:


> The jury, who heard the evidence, thought differently.


That's your interpretation of the basis on which they made the decision, but I've not seen any evidence in any of the reports, appeals, judgements etc that this was what the decision was based on.

There wasn't any alcohol involved after she'd met the footballer, the entire list of alcohol involved came from earlier in the night, and she'd had about an hour in the pizza place after leaving the club prior to even meeting the footballers, so I'd have said that if anything she should have been getting more sober as time went on.


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2014)

Fucking hell


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> So because of what was not argued by the prosecution you assume to know what was in his head at the time?
> So in reality your statement that "there seemed to be no doubt in the footballers mind that she was consenting" is actually bollocks ... it is not a fact just your opinion which you have come to without having heard all the evidence and testimony which the jury did


yeah, you see that  'seemed' bit?

what would that mean in that sentence? That I'm arguing the point as an incontrovertible fact?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

trashpony said:


> Are you saying that she was lying? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.


just to clarify this, in her court evidence she stated that she didn't remember what happened in response to every question, so no I'm not saying she was lying, as she herself never said she didn't consent.



> After talking in room 14, he said: "You each took your clothes off and he began having sex with you. Do you remember?"
> 
> She replied: "No."
> 
> ...


source

What I'm saying is that a law that allows people to be convicted as a rapist despite the woman apparently consenting to sex (and offering no suggestion in court that she hadn't) based solely on the drunkeness of the woman, where that woman is clearly not passed out or even that obviously inebriated, is not a law that I can support.

At best it's a law that will inevitably end up being applied very randomly, as millions of sexual interactions a year in the UK probably involve women and men who're at least that drunk.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 19, 2014)

S


free spirit said:


> yeah, you see that  'seemed' bit?
> 
> what would that mean in that sentence? That I'm arguing the point as an incontrovertible fact?



So why bring it up?
You were and are arguing that she was not raped...when you weren't privvy to all of the facts that the jury who convicted him had...and have spouted rubbish to back up your personal view that he is innocent.
Why are you so unable to believe a jury made a correct decision.
You have not shown any eeason as to why he would have been set up ... the were reasons why all the famous miscarriages of justice happened but nothing has been bought up here so maybe you could enlighten us as to why the police, courts, appeal courts, the prosecution and the victim have chosen to set him up.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> S
> 
> 
> So why bring it up?
> ...


how difficult is this to understand?

I don't think the jury necessarily made an incorrect decision as the law stands.

I think the law on which that jury was having to make their decision is wrong.

clear enough for you, or shall I get some fucking crayons out and draw you a picture?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> just to clarify this, in her court evidence she stated that she didn't remember what happened in response to every question, so no I'm not saying she was lying, as she herself never said she didn't consent.
> 
> 
> source
> ...



At what point in that does she consent to sex?


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> just to clarify this, in her court evidence she stated that she didn't remember what happened in response to every question, so no I'm not saying she was lying, as she herself never said she didn't consent.
> 
> 
> source
> ...



APPARENTLY...key word...he claims she consented...any chance the convicted rapist is lying?


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> how difficult is this to understand?
> 
> I don't think the jury necessarily made an incorrect decision as the law stands.
> 
> ...



I am quite capable of understanding your logic...I just think its dishonest and shit.
Hence your stupid crayon comments


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> At what point in that does she consent to sex?


in court she says she can't remember either way.

both witnesses say she consented on the night, she says she can't remember, the prosecution don't seem to have particularly dispute their statements that she consented, as they don't need to, they merely claim that whether she did or didn't is irrelevant as she wasn't in a fit state to give her consent legally due to being too drunk.

Or to put it another way, he was convicted on the basis that she was too drunk to consent legally, not on the basis that she hadn't consented on the night, so whether she had or hadn't actually consented was a moot point in court.


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2014)

I think the lesson we can all take away from this is that men need more protection from rape allegations.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> Or to put it another way, he was convicted on the basis that she was too drunk to consent legally, not on the basis that she hadn't consented on the night, so whether she had or hadn't actually consented was a moot point in court.



So if a 14 year old girl consented to a 50 year old man, he should be let off?


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 19, 2014)

I am half expecting free spirit to go galloway on my arse and claim the rapist is actually only guilty of bad sexual etiquette. 
Night all


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> I am quite capable of understanding your logic...I just think its dishonest and shit.
> Hence your stupid crayon comments


so, to be clear, you support a law that allows for someone to be charged and potentially convicted as a rapist despite both parties consenting to sex at the time, just because the police, CPS and possibly jury decide that the woman was too drunk to consent when it later turns out that she can't actually remember what happened?

And you support this even when the woman involved can be shown to have been at least able to walk in heels in and out of a hotel lobby under her own steam, so clearly not obviously falling over drunk?

Me, I think this is properly dodgy law making that a lot of people could potentially fall foul of after a drunken one night stand that's later regretted.


----------



## toggle (Oct 19, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> I am half expecting free spirit to go galloway on my arse and claim the rapist is actually only guilty of bad sexual etiquette.
> Night all



i think he's gone past that point already by claiming he knew the men were both acting in perfectly good faith.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> So if a 14 year old girl consented to a 50 year old man, he should be let off?


what?

these were all consenting adults within a few years age of each other.

Have you never had drunken sex with someone then not been entirely sure in the morning how you'd both ended up in bed with each other?

I'm not saying the guy here wasn't a sleazy twat, nor defending what he actually did, but the point of law on which he was convicted is dodgy as fuck IMO.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

toggle said:


> i think he's gone past that point already by claiming he knew the men were both acting in perfectly good faith.


where have I said that?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> what?
> 
> these were all consenting adults within a few years age of each other.
> 
> ...



I've never had sex with a drunken woman that a friend of mine procured for the evening. One of those adults was not consenting as she was judged too drunk to give consent. Just as a 14 year old girl would be judged too young to give consent.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

killer b said:


> I think the lesson we can all take away from this is that men need more protection from rape allegations.


nope, my argument is that consent should be consent, and the bar that's been set in this case for how drunk someone must be to be judged as not being capable of giving consent seems to be far too low.

If someone's capable of walking, holding a conversation etc then how the fuck is someone supposed to judge that legally speaking they're not fit to give their consent to have sex with you?

In this case they seem to have decided that 2.5 times the drink driving limit was too drunk, which is what they estimated her alcohol levels at, despite her not actually testing positive for alcohol when she went to the police station later that day. That level of drunkeness is a pretty standard friday / saturday night session for a lot of people, so what are we saying, that none of them should ever consider having sex with anyone they meet while out, as neither of them are in a fit state to legally consent to have sex with each other?

I know if I had genuinely been so twatted that I was incapable of making that sort of decision at 4am, then I'd still have been well over the limit the next afternoon.


----------



## toggle (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> where have I said that?






free spirit said:


> 10 minutes earlier she's seen on the cctv linked to walking into the hotel, have a look, does she seem in such a state that you'd automatically say that she should be judged as being in no fit state to consent to sex?
> 
> *There doesn't seem to have been any doubt in the footballers minds that she was clearly consenting, *and a willing partner in what was going on, the prosecution case was based on her being too drunk to have legally given her consent (as far as I can tell, if anyone has links that say otherwise please post them up).


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> I've never had sex with a drunken woman that a friend of mine procured for the evening. One of those adults was not consenting as she was judged too drunk to give consent. Just as a 14 year old girl would be judged too young to give consent.


how drunk would someone need to be before you would judge them as being too drunk to consent?

don;t forget that the other guy involved also got charged and prosecuted here, so it's not just about whether Ched was right to be a sleazy fuck and jump in after his mate.

A 14 year old girl is an absolute, defined clearly in law as being illegal, someone being incapacited by alcohol isn't absolute, it's a judgement call, and in this case they seem to have judged it at a level that would make millions of people a year rapists for regularly having sex with each other in similar states of inebriation. 

We're talking the equivalent of 5-6 pints of stella here ffs if we're talking 2.5 times the drink drive limit, who hasn't had sex with someone when they or the other person or both has been that pissed?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

so I haven't said that then toggle.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> If someone's capable of walking, holding a conversation etc then how the fuck is someone supposed to judge that legally speaking they're not fit to give their consent to have sex with you?



Setting aside your desire to change the law to make rape conviction harder, what information are you basing your assertions on? How do you know, (better than the jury), what state of intoxication the victim was in at the point that the convicted man raped her?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Setting aside your desire to change the law to make rape conviction harder, what information are you basing your assertions on? How do you know, (better than the jury), what state of intoxication the victim was in at the point that the convicted man raped her?


the reports and court transcripts give an estimate of 2.5 times the drink drive limit.

for someone like me the drink drive limit is around 2 pints of stella, so 2.5 times that is 5 pints for me, which is nowt really in the grand scheme of things.

so yes I'm questioning the concept that someone who's at that relatively mild level of drunkeness should be judged as being unfit to give their consent.

I'll see if I can find the reference for that.


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2014)

You know alcohol works differently depending on a whole load of factors don't you? Get a grip ffs. This isn't about people getting pissed and having a regretful shag, its about predatory rapists taking semi paralytic girls home and raping them. Fucksake.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Setting aside your desire to change the law to make rape conviction harder


I think people should only be convicted of rape if they're actually raped someone.

If the other person is consenting, then in my book it isn't rape, at least if they're not completely paralytic.


brogdale said:


> How do you know, (better than the jury), what state of intoxication the victim was in at the point that the convicted man raped her?





> The jury was shown two videos of police interviews in which the woman, who was 19 at the time of the alleged attack, described drinking four double vodkas and lemonade and a shot of Sambucca at Rhyl's Zu Bar in May 2011.
> 
> She told police: "I felt tipsy but not out of control.
> 
> "I usually drink more than that. I haven't blacked out before, not being able to remember anything."





> The expert called by the defence calculated that the complainant's likely blood-alcohol level at about 4am would have approximated to something like 2½ times the legal driving limit.


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2014)

So it should be easier for guys to get away with raping pissed up girls because of how drunk you tend to feel after a certain amount of units?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

killer b said:


> You know alcohol works differently depending on a whole load of factors don't you? Get a grip ffs. This isn't about people getting pissed and having a regretful shag, its about predatory rapists taking semi paralytic girls home and raping them. Fucksake.


does she look paralytic to you in that video?

are you saying that all the people who pull when out on the piss should be deemed as being rapists if the girl was more than 2.5 times the drink drive limit and therefore incapable of legally giving their consent? Or is it just if she can't remember what happened in the morning, not that it should be, as if she was too pissed to give consent then she was too pissed to give consent even if she can remember consenting.

That's a hell of a lot of rapists running around raping women every friday and saturday night in every city and town in the country.

It was always a shit law, and this case seems to have been a particularly shit interpretation of that law if it's setting the bar that low for intoxification leading to someone being judged as being incapable of giving their consent.


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2014)

I'm not going to watch the video. I've no interest in judging a rape victim's drunkenness from some grainy cctv footage of her. I'm fairly revolted that you would too tbh.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

killer b said:


> So it should be easier for guys to get away with raping pissed up girls because of how drunk you tend to feel after a certain amount of units?



If someone of legal age is consenting then it shouldn't be rape is what I'm saying.

This prosecution wasn't based on her not consenting, it was based on her allegedly being too drunk to consent legally, something that only became law in 2003, and has minimal case law so far to determine what level of drunkeness is too drunk.

If this is the level at which the bar is to be set then it is far too low IMO.


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2014)

So, make it harder to convict rapists. Gotcha.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> If this is the level at which the bar is to be set then it is far too low IMO.



What level should it be? 5 times over the drink-drive limit? 10 times?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

killer b said:


> I'm not going to watch the video. I've no interest in judging a rape victim's drunkenness from some grainy cctv footage of her. I'm fairly revolted that you would too tbh.


how do you think the jury made that judgement?

by watching that cctv video, taking account of what the receptionist said, and assessing how many units she'd drunk... but probably also taking into account the fact that she'd lost her memory of the situation.

but you know, if you want to judge me on this while at the same time not bothering to check the evidence for yourself, i guess that;s your call.

ok don;t watch the video, just think about what 2.5 times the drink drive limit means, it's fuck all relatively speaking, even she was saying that she usually drank more than that


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2014)

It isn't 'not bothering'. I don't want to watch the build up to an actual rape. If I were on the jury and asked to do such a thing, I'd feel pretty uncomfortable but do it, because that's what's being presented as part of the evidence. For an argument on a message board? Fuck that. And fuck your 'not bothering'.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> What level should it be? 5 times over the drink-drive limit? 10 times?


I don't know exactly, but not at a level that's well below the level that a large proportion of people who're out drinking on a weekend would consider to be fairly normal.

I'm sure I've drunk with both of you at well over that level and still held relatively rational conversations, and managed to make it back on a train to Leeds afterwards, that's not paralytic levels, and she's not even close to paralytic in the cctv footage.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I don't know exactly, but not at a level that's well below the level that a large proportion of people who're out drinking on a weekend would consider to be fairly normal.
> 
> I'm sure I've drunk with both of you at well over that level and still held relatively rational conversations, and managed to make it back on a train to Leeds afterwards, that's not paralytic levels, and she's not even close to paralytic in the cctv footage.



So if you'd been a juror on this case, you'd have found him not guilty? What evidence would you have needed to find him guilty?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

killer b said:


> It isn't 'not bothering'. I don't want to watch the build up to an actual rape. If I were on the jury and asked to do such a thing, I'd feel pretty uncomfortable but do it, because that's what's being presented as part of the evidence. For an argument on a message board? Fuck that. And fuck your 'not bothering'.


here's the thing. She doesn't know if she was raped or consented as she can't remember it. She didn't say she;d been raped in court, or to the police, she said she couldn't remember.

The police told her she'd been raped because she couldn't remember what had happened and therefore must have been too pissed to give her consent under the 2003 legislation, and the police charged the footballers on that basis.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> here's the thing. She doesn't know if she was raped or consented as she can't remember it.



Doesn't that in itself tell you anything about her state of drunkenness at the time?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> So if you'd been a juror on this case, you'd have found him not guilty? What evidence would you have needed to find him guilty?


if the only evidence against him was her level of drunkeness, and his own police statements where he admitted having consensual sex with her, and I saw that cctv footage, and was told how much she'd drunk in the night, then I doubt I'd have convicted him of rape on the basis of her being too drunk to consent.

Or at least I doubt I would have unless directed that there was previous case law that dictated that this level of drunkeness was too drunk. Juries don't have entirely free will on this, they're directed by judges, and the lawyers as to what they can and can't take into account.

ffs we used to dj and derig club nights while as pissed as that, then go back and carry on drinking for another day or so.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Doesn't that in itself tell you anything about her state of drunkenness at the time?


it tells me little about how drunk she would actually have seemed at the time.

but your post gives a good indication of how the jury would probably have viewed that, it's one of the points that the defence wanted to bring in an expert opinion on in the appeal they were denied.

people can be entirely lucid, walking around fine, dancing, holding conversations etc but then in the morning they can't remember anything about that period. It doesn't really indicate that anyone should have necessarily automatically thought that she was far too drunk to be capable of consenting at the time.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

I've just checked the legislation itself, and the basis for this prosecution isn't even outlined in the legislation itself, it seems to be based on case law based on judgement of what constitutes 'having the capacity to make that choice'

The original legislation specifies that it would be rape if the person were asleep, unconscious, had been given drugs / alcohol without their consent that incapacitated them etc but nothing at all about the person having voluntarily got themselves drunk and therefore being incapable of giving their consent.

So despite the legislation clearly defining 6 situations in which the person wouldn't be deemed as being capable of giving their consent, the courts seem to have come up with their own additional reason that wasn't in the original legislation based on their judgemet of what constitutes 'having the capacity to make that choice'.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/pdfs/ukpga_20030042_en.pdf
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/pdfs/ukpga_20030042_en.pdf
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/pdfs/ukpga_20030042_en.pdf
which is presumably why lots of people seem to have assumed she must have been passed out, as that would have been the situation within the original legislation in which this would have classed as rape, not being a bit pissed but essentially with it.

As far as I can tell, the judge in this case based his guidance to the jury on the CPS guidance, which itself references the case R v Bree 2007, which went to the court of appeal, where the appeal court judges actually declined to define specifically what should constitute someone being too drunk to consent, instead giving broad guidance similar to that given by the judge in this case, and the CPS. The odd thing being that in that case the person involved was acquitted.

So I think I may well be right that this case here actually is the first case to set the precedent with a conviction based on that appeal court judgement, or one of the first.



> The judge said that the key test was whether the alleged victim had through drink or other substances lost her capacity to consent. If, through drink a woman had lost her capacity to consent, sexual intercourse would be rape. Conversely, an alleged victim who had drunk “substantial quantities” could still consent to sex. The capacity to consent, said the judge, could evaporate before sexual intercourse took place.



So if you lot would actually call off the dogs for a minute you might actually consider that this isn't exactly a standard cut and dried rape case, it's either the first of its kind to be found guilty on this basis, or one of the first, and it's based on appeal court judgements of what the word 'capacity' should mean rather than anything that was actually debated and agreed in parliament on the subject.

Surely if parliament had intended for this to be the situation then they would have added in a 7th paragraph to section 75 (2) which specified that a person who was under the incapacitated through drink or drugs they'd taken themselves voluntarily would also be considered to be incapable of consenting. 

Instead parliament left it as being someone who was actually passed out, or had been spiked, but a few appeal court judges determined that this wasn't sufficient and added in an extra classification themselves.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 19, 2014)

You really belong over on ched evans dot com. You're doing a damned fine job of fighting his corner. I fucking hope you don't pick up drunken teenagers in pubs and clubs because you seem to me to be arguing that if a woman has paid for her own drinks, she's pretty fair game


----------



## likesfish (Oct 19, 2014)

Sleazy rapist twat got his just desserts.
  The idea that some random girl would consent to a gang bang only happens in porn movies so yeah bang to rights.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 19, 2014)

Free spirit eh? Well I never


----------



## Geri (Oct 19, 2014)

That video is totally irrelevant. How the hell can you tell how drunk someone was from a few minutes of CCTV?


----------



## bmd (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> here's the thing. She doesn't know if she was raped or consented as she can't remember it. She didn't say she;d been raped in court, or to the police, she said she couldn't remember.
> 
> The police told her she'd been raped because she couldn't remember what had happened and therefore must have been too pissed to give her consent under the 2003 legislation, and the police charged the footballers on that basis.



She doesn't know if she consented because she can't remember. But she was distressed enough by the situation to go through a rape allegation, right through to prosecution. 

The law is there to protect vulnerable people. In this case it was up to a jury to decide whether she consented because she couldn't remember whether she had or not.

Lastly, there were two other people in that room who could have decided whether she was capable of consent. They made the wrong choice. I hope this sends a clear message to all parties about consenting sex. To women who feel they have been raped, I am glad they feel more empowered. To men who feel this kind of behaviour is ok, I hope you're looking over your shoulder.

You keep mentioning that you've done this btw.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

toggle said:


> i'll take your word for that. i really don't think that i want to try to stomach delving into the kind of places where it's ok to 'name and shame' rape victims and make up shit about them to look for where that shit came from



Sadly you really don't need to delve.  A very obvious google search will reveal her name, then a number of the hits take you to people spreading this kind of shit.  No wonder she left the coutry.  

And, in any event, even if she had made previous allegations, doesn't mean that she wasn't raped this time (or, indeed, on the other occasions).


----------



## bmd (Oct 19, 2014)

Athos said:


> Sadly you really don't need to delve.  A very obvious google search will reveal her name, then a number of the hits take you to people spreading this kind of shit.  No wonder she left the coutry.
> 
> And, in any event, even if she had made previous allegations, doesn't mean that she wasn't raped this time (or, indeed, on the other occasions).



All of that shite about spurious rape allegations makes me so fucking angry. Yes, there are a small percentage of women making false allegations, just like with every other crime on the planet.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

bmd said:


> All of that shite about spurious rape allegations makes me so fucking angry. Yes, there are a small percentage of women making false allegations, just like with every other crime on the planet.



Indeed.  I'd be willing to bet that the ratio of innocent men convicted to guilty men acquitted must be in the 1000s.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I've just checked the legislation itself, and the basis for this prosecution isn't even outlined in the legislation itself, it seems to be based on case law based on judgement of what constitutes 'having the capacity to make that choice'
> 
> The original legislation specifies that it would be rape if the person were asleep, unconscious, had been given drugs / alcohol without their consent that incapacitated them etc but nothing at all about the person having voluntarily got themselves drunk and therefore being incapable of giving their consent.
> 
> ...



You don't have a clue about how the law works, and this post is evidence that a (very) little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

There's only one thing worse than a barrack-room lawyer.  A rape-apologist cunt.


----------



## bmd (Oct 19, 2014)

Athos said:


> Indeed.  I'd be willing to bet that the ratio of innocent men convicted to guilty men acquitted must be in the 1000s.



Absolutely. It doesn't make it right but what gets me is that we never hear the end of it if a previously guilty man is proved innocent beyond all doubt, unlike in most other crimes. It is then held up as an example of how scheming and conniving women are in rape cases.

I never knew that about the woman in this case leaving the country. How utterly depressing.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> so, to be clear, you support a law that allows for someone to be charged and potentially convicted as a rapist despite both parties consenting to sex at the time, just because the police, CPS and possibly jury decide that the woman was too drunk to consent when it later turns out that she can't actually remember what happened?
> 
> And you support this even when the woman involved can be shown to have been at least able to walk in heels in and out of a hotel lobby under her own steam, so clearly not obviously falling over drunk?
> 
> Me, I think this is properly dodgy law making that a lot of people could potentially fall foul of after a drunken one night stand that's later regretted.



So, just to be clear, you claim this law allows men to be convicted of rape when a woman consents to sex? Then you are an idiot. Rape can only occur when consent has not and can not be given. If a woman over the age of 16 says she has consented then there will not be a rape case...that DID NOT happen in this case...the woman DID NOT say she consented...therefore your premise is complete and utter bollocks. Or do you need me to draw in in crayons before you understand this simple premise.

You have prattled on about about her not remembering if she consented but now talk of all parties consenting.

You decide she is not too drunk to have consented from watching cctv...and now have developed a fear that many people will fall foul after a drunken one night stand.

Well guess what, the police, courts and prosecution are shit at dealing with rape cases, allowing women to be reabused in court and treating them like liars so the idea that the courts and police police are now out fitting up innocent men is bollocks.

You have no fucking idea what consent was or was not given...you werent there and you werent on the jury. Yet you have stated that he "seemed to be in no doubt that consent had been given" and you can only get this from taking the view of the convicted rapist ... does it not cross your mind that the convicted rapist is capable of lying too?

You have no idea how drunk she was or how the drink affected her. Yet on and on you go about how she werent that drunk, based on she could walk 10 minutes before.
If you like detective puzzles go buy a box set of Columbo dvds and guess away but stop with the paronoid, misogynistic,  poor man shit.
You claim you have researched this case and state that you havent read the original trial transcript but you have read the appeal evidence (which will be based around the convicted rapists lies about his innocence) and his website (set up by by supporters and fans of this convicted rapist).
You dont question why they are supporting a convicted rapist, you do however question how she was a victim...and now you worry that people ... by which you mean men...are at risk of falling foul of a one night stand.
Your posts imply unpleasant things about the woman who was raped but nothing about the woman who has continued to be the partner of this convicted rapist. It says nothing about the animals who outed this woman on the internet, who abused her and threatened her online to such a degree that she has had to take up a new identity and leave her friends and family behind.
Your views, logic and arguments are odious.


----------



## toggle (Oct 19, 2014)

Athos said:


> Sadly you really don't need to delve.  A very obvious google search will reveal her name, then a number of the hits take you to people spreading this kind of shit.  No wonder she left the coutry.
> 
> And, in any event, even if she had made previous allegations, doesn't mean that she wasn't raped this time (or, indeed, on the other occasions).



yeah, sometimes this shit takes some active effort to avoid



bmd said:


> She doesn't know if she consented because she can't remember. But she was distressed enough by the situation to go through a rape allegation, right through to prosecution.
> 
> The law is there to protect vulnerable people. In this case it was up to a jury to decide whether she consented because she couldn't remember whether she had or not.
> 
> ...



it's also the constant promotion of the idea that women regularly make rape complaints when they changed their mind after the act.
.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> Free spirit eh? Well I never


it's IRONICK


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2014)

toggle said:


> it's also the constant promotion of the idea that women regularly make rape complaints when they changed their mind after the act.
> .


and as you know, when this happens - and it's a rare thing - it ends up in the newspapers and the women involved face charges. free spirit's way off course on this one, but he seems to be way off course on a number of other things too.


----------



## bmd (Oct 19, 2014)

toggle said:


> yeah, sometimes this shit takes some active effort to avoid
> it's also the constant promotion of the idea that women regularly make rape complaints when they changed their mind after the act.



In fact I would go so far as to say that's the crux of the issue here.


----------



## toggle (Oct 19, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> You have no fucking idea what consent was or was not given...you werent there and you werent on the jury. Yet you have stated that he "seemed to be in no doubt that consent had been given" and you can only get this from taking the view of the convicted rapist ... does it not cross your mind that the convicted rapist is capable of lying too?



there seem to be a lot of people that assume that men are more trustworthy than women. even if they don't start ascribing some deeply unpleasent stereotypes to explain why women might havemade a rape complaint, then there is a far more insidions description that she must have been mistaken. because women can't be trusted to make an assessment of their own experiences


----------



## toggle (Oct 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> and as you know, when this happens - and it's a rare thing - it ends up in the newspapers and the women involved face charges. free spirit's way off course on this one, but he seems to be way off course on a number of other things too.



absolutely. 

false complaints of rape are made at about the same rates as any other crime. although there are surveys that show larger numbers, those are based on some very suspect methodology. 

the most detailed report i've seen is that CPS report that ive posted up links to on numerous occasions that shows provably false allegations are exceedingly low. and in a lot of those cases, the complaint was made by someone other than the victim


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2014)

toggle said:


> there seem to be a lot of people that assume that men are more trustworthy than women. even if they don't start ascribing some deeply unpleasent stereotypes to explain why women might havemade a rape complaint, then there is a far more insidions description that she must have been mistaken. because women can't be trusted to make an assessment of their own experiences


given the majority of politicians at all levels are men, the majority of bankers and senior executives are men and the majority of journalists are men, i think people need to re-examine this bizarre and ill-founded belief that men are more trustworthy than women. the evidence, if evidence it is, points in quite another direction.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 19, 2014)

People assune that if a man is not prosecuted or convicted after being accused of rape then  it must be a false allegation. 
Some people are very selective in their understanding


----------



## toggle (Oct 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> given the majority of politicians at all levels are men, the majority of bankers and senior executives are men and the majority of journalists are men, i think people need to re-examine this bizarre and ill-founded belief that men are more trustworthy than women. the evidence, if evidence it is, points in quite another direction.



i think that's a rfunction of access to power. I doubt if our society had developed as a matriarchy, then women would have turned out any better.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2014)

toggle said:


> i think that's a rfunction of access to power. I doubt if our society had developed as a matriarchy, then women would have turned out any better.


seems to me it means that there's an awful lot of men out there who are prepared to lie on a daily basis about even the most mundane and banal things, indeed to make lying the foundation of their income.


----------



## toggle (Oct 19, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> seems to me it means that there's an awful lot of men out there who are prepared to lie on a daily basis about even the most mundane and banal things, indeed to make lying the foundation of their income.



but we achieve nothing by replacing one stereotype with another, other than feeding into the MRA victim complex


----------



## Cid (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I've just checked the legislation itself, and the basis for this prosecution isn't even outlined in the legislation itself, it seems to be based on case law based on judgement of what constitutes 'having the capacity to make that choice'
> 
> The original legislation specifies that it would be rape if the person were asleep, unconscious, had been given drugs / alcohol without their consent that incapacitated them etc but nothing at all about the person having voluntarily got themselves drunk and therefore being incapable of giving their consent.
> 
> ...



You've misunderstood the legislation. What you're looking at is an evidential presumption. I.e if evidence that any of the above circumstances occurred is adduced, then there is a rebuttable presumption that the offence was committed. They don't work the other way, if none of the circumstances apply there just isn't a presumption.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I've just checked the legislation itself, and the basis for this prosecution isn't even outlined in the legislation itself, it seems to be based on case law based on judgement of what constitutes 'having the capacity to make that choice'



The legislation talks about consent, and acknowledges that it, in turn, turns on the question of capacity.  Capacity is a well established jurisprudential concept.  The legislature knew this when framing the act.




free spirit said:


> The original legislation specifies that it would be rape if the person were asleep, unconscious, had been given drugs / alcohol without their consent that incapacitated them etc but nothing at all about the person having voluntarily got themselves drunk and therefore being incapable of giving their consent.



You've completely misunderstood the effect of s.75.  What it does is effectively reverse the burden of proof, by raising a rebuttable presumption of the absence of consent in a very narrowly drawn set of circumstances, which all, in and of themselves, indicate culpability on the part of the accused i.e. the victim was drugged or imprisoned.




free spirit said:


> So despite the legislation clearly defining 6 situations in which the person wouldn't be deemed as being capable of giving their consent, the courts seem to have come up with their own additional reason that wasn't in the original legislation based on their judgemet of what constitutes 'having the capacity to make that choice'.
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/pdfs/ukpga_20030042_en.pdf
> which is presumably why lots of people seem to have assumed she must have been passed out, as that would have been the situation within the original legislation in which this would have classed as rape, not being a bit pissed but essentially with it.



No.  The legislation specifically mentions that consent turns on capacity, and it is long settled that intoxication is relevant to capacity.  This is not a case of the courts going beyond what parliament intended at all.




free spirit said:


> As far as I can tell, the judge in this case based his guidance to the jury on the CPS guidance, which itself references the case R v Bree 2007, which went to the court of appeal, where the appeal court judges actually declined to define specifically what should constitute someone being too drunk to consent, instead giving broad guidance similar to that given by the judge in this case, and the CPS. The odd thing being that in that case the person involved was acquitted.



Judges don't give guidance based on CPS guidance; they do so based on the law (legislation and case law).  Often courts decline to define terms which have an ordinary meaning, for fear that any attempt at doing so will fail to reflect the necessary nuance, preferring to leave that to a jury.  Nothing odd about that, or about the acquittal in Bree.




free spirit said:


> So I think I may well be right that this case here actually is the first case to set the precedent with a conviction based on that appeal court judgement, or one of the first.



Why do you claim that?  And what of it?




free spirit said:


> So if you lot would actually call off the dogs for a minute you might actually consider that this isn't exactly a standard cut and dried rape case, it's either the first of its kind to be found guilty on this basis, or one of the first, and it's based on appeal court judgements of what the word 'capacity' should mean rather than anything that was actually debated and agreed in parliament on the subject.



There's no such thing as a standard rape case.  But this is cut and dried insofar as the jury decided beyond reasonable doubt that she had not consented and that he did not reasonably believe that she had.  The jury that heard all of the evidence, not merely selected extracts presented on the rapist's supporters' website.




free spirit said:


> Surely if parliament had intended for this to be the situation then they would have added in a 7th paragraph to section 75 (2) which specified that a person who was under the incapacitated through drink or drugs they'd taken themselves voluntarily would also be considered to be incapable of consenting.
> 
> Instead parliament left it as being someone who was actually passed out, or had been spiked, but a few appeal court judges determined that this wasn't sufficient and added in an extra classification themselves.



No.  I've addressed this, above.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2014)

toggle said:


> but we achieve nothing by replacing one stereotype with another, other than feeding into the MRA victim complex


i'm not saying one gender more honest than another. i am saying that it is a mistake to assume one gender is more honest than another.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

Cid said:


> You've misunderstood the legislation. What you're looking at is an evidential presumption. I.e if evidence that any of the above circumstances occurred is adduced, then there is a rebuttable presumption that the offence was committed. They don't work the other way, if none of the circumstances apply there just isn't a presumption.



You beat me to it!


----------



## J Ed (Oct 19, 2014)

Disgusting http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...g-super-ched-evans-at-todays-game--gy7WMY3HUg


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I have real problems with the law that's being used in this case, and always have done since it was framed a decade or so ago.
> 
> Under UK law, anyone who gets blind drunk voluntarily is still held to be legally responsible for any actions they take while blind drunk, from driving a car to getting involved in a drunken fight to vandalism to murder etc. being blind drunk is not a defence against any charges.



What "actions" did the victim take with regard to Evans?  The evidence shows that she consented to sex with the other footballer (at a time when Evans wasn't even present), and she accepted that action, but where Evans is concerned, she wasn't aware, and the evidence has shown that his claims of consent, and of her being sober enough to walk unaided to the room, were false.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> so, to be clear, you support *a law that allows for someone to be charged and potentially convicted as a rapist despite both parties consenting to sex at the time*, just because the police, CPS and possibly jury decide that the woman was too drunk to consent when it later turns out that she can't actually remember what happened?
> 
> And you support this even when the woman involved can be shown to have been at least able to walk in heels in and out of a hotel lobby under her own steam, so clearly not obviously falling over drunk?
> 
> Me, I think this is properly dodgy law making that a lot of people could potentially fall foul of after a drunken one night stand that's later regretted.



Unfortunately for your argument, you've entirely missed the fact that  pieces of legislation aren't applied in a void, they're applied in consonance with other legislation, and with mitigation and intent investigated. All of that informs charging, prosecution and court decisions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> does she look paralytic to you in that video?



Does the fact that she doesn't *look* paralytic prove whether or not she was paralytic?
Of course it doesn't. All it proves is that at the time she appeared on CCTV, she didn't *appear* to be so drunk that she was "paralytic".
Also, as her blood wasn't taken until "the morning after", the usual provisos with regard to drugs with short half-lives (of which ketamine and rohypnol are two, and the most commonly-used "date rape" drugs) need to be paid attention to.



> are you saying that all the people who pull when out on the piss should be deemed as being rapists if the girl was more than 2.5 times the drink drive limit and therefore incapable of legally giving their consent? Or is it just if she can't remember what happened in the morning, not that it should be, as if she was too pissed to give consent then she was too pissed to give consent even if she can remember consenting.
> 
> That's a hell of a lot of rapists running around raping women every friday and saturday night in every city and town in the country.
> 
> It was always a shit law, and this case seems to have been a particularly shit interpretation of that law if it's setting the bar that low for intoxification leading to someone being judged as being incapable of giving their consent.



No-one is saying any of this.
I find it intriguing that you've constructed such an argument, and that you're defending it so vehemently.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

Athos said:


> You don't have a clue about how the law works, and this post is evidence that a (very) little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
> 
> There's only one thing worse than a barrack-room lawyer.  A rape-apologist cunt.


really, well why don't you fucking enlighten me then?

you can start by point me to the bit in the legislation where it says that what happened here is illegal.

I've quoted the CPS guidance, and checked the case law on which it's based, so if you have a different idea of how the law works then please do spit it out.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Does the fact that she doesn't *look* paralytic prove whether or not she was paralytic?
> Of course it doesn't. All it proves is that at the time she appeared on CCTV, she didn't *appear* to be so drunk that she was "paralytic".
> Also, as her blood wasn't taken until "the morning after", the usual provisos with regard to drugs with short half-lives (of which ketamine and rohypnol are two, and the most commonly-used "date rape" drugs) need to be paid attention to.


well how is someone supposed to judge if the girl they've met on a night out is going to be judged at a later date to have been too drunk to consent?

She doesn't look too drunk on the cctv, and the blood alcohol levels, and the list of drinks she'd drunk that night given in court back that up.

As for the date rape drugs, well you've just made that up, it has nothing to do with this case.




ViolentPanda said:


> No-one is saying any of this.
> I find it intriguing that you've constructed such an argument, and that you're defending it so vehemently.


the court is saying this, that is the legal precedent that has been set here, or at least reinforced from the earlier appeal court judgement that set the principle, but not the level at which someone would be judged to be incapacitated through alcohol. Do we have to carry breathalysers with us or something?

I'd seriously suggest that people might want to actually investigate this a bit more before passing judgement.

I'll put it another way, this is the first time anyone has ever been convicted of rape on this basis (as far as I can tell), so might be worthy of a bit more informed discussion than knee jerk 'rape apologist' bollocks.

or has urban really sunk to the level where it's actually impossible to have an informed debate about difficult subjects like this?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 19, 2014)

belboid said:


> mo, its nonsense.  There is video footage, iirr, of her being 'helped' upstairs while she is clearly far too pissed to walk - and, therefore, also clearly far too pissed to give informed consent.



If you read the report somebody posted earlier, it mentions the fact that two men filmed the rape through the window. I remember reading at the time in a report on the case that this video was produced and the victim was judged to have been unconscious or nearly unconscious.

I may be remembering wrong, in which case my apologies. In any case the report shows that the two men left immediately after, at which point it would appear the victim was unable to leave the room, with them or on her own.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> What "actions" did the victim take with regard to Evans?  The evidence shows that she consented to sex with the other footballer (at a time when Evans wasn't even present), and she accepted that action,


no she didn't, she said she can't remember, and he was charged and prosecuted all the way to court, it was only the jury that didn't find him guilty.


----------



## belboid (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> no she didn't, she said she can't remember, and he was charged and prosecuted all the way to court, it was only the jury that didn't find him guilty.


you dont seem to understand what 'accepted' means


----------



## belboid (Oct 19, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> If you read the report somebody posted earlier, it mentions the fact that two men filmed the rape through the window. I remember reading at the time in a report on the case that this video was produced and the victim was judged to have been unconscious or nearly unconscious.
> 
> I may be remembering wrong, in which case my apologies. In any case the report shows that the two men left immediately after, at which point it would appear the victim was unable to leave the room, with them or on her own.


there were many reports of what was on the video. The court seemed ro decide that nothing was clear on it, and it wasnt key. afair


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

Athos said:


> The legislation talks about consent, and acknowledges that it, in turn, turns on the question of capacity.  Capacity is a well established jurisprudential concept.  The legislature knew this when framing the act.
> 
> You've completely misunderstood the effect of s.75.  What it does is effectively reverse the burden of proof, by raising a rebuttable presumption of the absence of consent in a very narrowly drawn set of circumstances, which all, in and of themselves, indicate culpability on the part of the accused i.e. the victim was drugged or imprisoned.
> 
> No.  The legislation specifically mentions that consent turns on capacity, and it is long settled that intoxication is relevant to capacity.  This is not a case of the courts going beyond what parliament intended at all.


Really, so parliament intended to remove the ability of people to consent to sex at such relatively low levels of voluntary intoxication?

Sorry, but I call bollocks on that.

Also there has always previously been a very different view taken on voluntary intoxification vs involuntary intoxification in UK law, which presumably would be why involuntary intoxification was given it's own category in the legislation itself.



Athos said:


> Judges don't give guidance based on CPS guidance; they do so based on the law (legislation and case law).  Often courts decline to define terms which have an ordinary meaning, for fear that any attempt at doing so will fail to reflect the necessary nuance, preferring to leave that to a jury.  Nothing odd about that, or about the acquittal in Bree.


OK that was clumsily put, what I was getting at was that they were both based on the same case law, and seemed to be worded very similarly though admittedly the CPS guidance may actually have been updated following this verdict.



> Why do you claim that?  And what of it?


because I can't find any other examples of it happening online, feel free to post up some other examples, and note that I said either the first, or one of the first, and that I'm talking about someone who was a bit pissed entirely of her own volition, not someone who was actually passed out or had been deliberately drugged or something.



Athos said:


> There's no such thing as a standard rape case.  But this is cut and dried insofar as the jury decided beyond reasonable doubt that she had not consented and that he did not reasonably believe that she had.  The jury that heard all of the evidence, not merely selected extracts presented on the rapist's supporters' website.


They decided that she was incapable of giving her consent due to being drunk, which is a very different proposition.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> well how is someone supposed to judge if the girl they've met on a night out is going to be judged at a later date to have been too drunk to consent?



It's fairly simple: If she's too drunk to speak coherently at the time you're about to have sex, then you should judge her to be incapacitated, and not have sex. Personally, I'd extend that to even if she's given prior sober consent.



> She doesn't look too drunk on the cctv, and the blood alcohol levels, and the list of drinks she'd drunk that night given in court back that up.



Whether she "looks" drunk or not is absolutely irrelevant, and blood alcohol levels are a "guideline" to alcohol consumption, rather than an accurate gauge of what's been drunk.



> As for the date rape drugs, well you've just made that up, it has nothing to do with this case.



You've missed my point, which is we *can't* know whether or not such drugs were used, and are what rendered her "paralytic" in the hotel, because at the time of the offence, the tests for such drugs in blood and urine weren't sensitive enough to show the presence of them after 8-12 hours. We *now* have tests that can trace such drugs up to 72 hours after ingestion, but not then.  It has nothing to do with this case only insofar as tests the next day didn't show the presence of benzos or ketamine. They did show traces of coke and cannabis, but both of those have weeks-long half-lives, not hours-long.
And, of course, it doesn't do much for your "she wasn't paralytic" argument, that administration of any drug of the kind I've mentioned would have put her *exactly* in a situation where she would have little memory of events.  But hey, she probably made all that stuff about not remembering up just to put Evans in prison. :faceplam:



> the court is saying this, that is the legal precedent that has been set here, or at least reinforced from the earlier appeal court judgement that set the principle, but not the level at which someone would be judged to be incapacitated through alcohol. Do we have to carry breathalysers with us or something?



If it'd save you from a supposedly-false rape charge, then why the fuck not? All you'd be doing is taking responsibility for your own behaviour.



> I'd seriously suggest that people might want to actually investigate this a bit more before passing judgement.



What you mean is that you think people should agree with you.



> I'll put it another way, this is the first time anyone has ever been convicted of rape on this basis (as far as I can tell), so might be worthy of a bit more informed discussion than knee jerk 'rape apologist' bollocks.
> 
> or has urban really sunk to the level where it's actually impossible to have an informed debate about difficult subjects like this?



We're having an informed debate. The only person perceiving it as not being an "informed debate" is you. What does that tell you (and I should warn you that believing you're right and everyone else is wrong, is more often a sign of megalomania that it is a sign of the person actually being correct)?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> no she didn't, she said she can't remember, and he was charged and prosecuted all the way to court, it was only the jury that didn't find him guilty.



Yes, she stated that she couldn't remember. She accepted that she *may* have consented to sex with him. That's pretty much the basis of why the jury acquitted him - her acceptance of possible consent. In Evans' case, that didn't exist.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's fairly simple: If she's too drunk to speak coherently at the time you're about to have sex, then you should judge her to be incapacitated, and not have sex. Personally, I'd extend that to even if she's given prior sober consent.
> 
> Whether she "looks" drunk or not is absolutely irrelevant, and blood alcohol levels are a "guideline" to alcohol consumption, rather than an accurate gauge of what's been drunk.


blood alcohol levels are sufficient to get people done for drink driving on a regular basis, but not sufficient to determine someone's level of drunkness in this case?

right, well what would you suggest?



ViolentPanda said:


> You've missed my point, which is we *can't* know whether or not such drugs were used, and are what rendered her "paralytic" in the hotel, because at the time of the offence, the tests for such drugs in blood and urine weren't sensitive enough to show the presence of them after 8-12 hours. We *now* have tests that can trace such drugs up to 72 hours after ingestion, but not then.  It has nothing to do with this case only insofar as tests the next day didn't show the presence of benzos or ketamine. They did show traces of coke and cannabis, but both of those have weeks-long half-lives, not hours-long.
> 
> And, of course, it doesn't do much for your "she wasn't paralytic" argument, that administration of any drug of the kind I've mentioned would have put her *exactly* in a situation where she would have little memory of events.  But hey, she probably made all that stuff about not remembering up just to put Evans in prison. :faceplam:


no you've missed my point - you have made this up, it has nothing to do with this case, so bringing it up is bullshit.



ViolentPanda said:


> If it'd save you from a supposedly-false rape charge, then why the fuck not? All you'd be doing is taking responsibility for your own behaviour.


seriously.

you seriously think everyone on a night out should be carrying a breathalyser and breathalysing anyone they might be considering asking to come home with them prior to popping the question?

get your lips around this breathlyser tube love you've pulled.....

ah I'm sorry love, but you seem to have had one too many of those voddie and cokes, so I'm going to have to decline your invitation for a night of passion on the basis that you're too drunk to make that decision rationally.



> We're having an informed debate. The only person perceiving it as not being an "informed debate" is you. What does that tell you (and I should warn you that believing you're right and everyone else is wrong, is more often a sign of megalomania that it is a sign of the person actually being correct)?


really? an informed debate in which one side is calling me rape apologist cunt and the like, despite mostly not having bothered to actually do any research beyond the tabloid headlines?

Have a look at what you just proposed above, then maybe think if that seems like a sound law that you really support. fucking breathalysers.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes, she stated that she couldn't remember. She accepted that she *may* have consented to sex with him. That's pretty much the basis of why the jury acquitted him - her acceptance of possible consent. In Evans' case, that didn't exist.


did she?

where?

the only report of her court statement I've seen shows her saying 'I don't remember' in answer to every question (the bbc one Iinked to earlier)


----------



## belboid (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> blood alcohol levels are sufficient to get people done for drink driving on a regular basis, but not sufficient to determine someone's level of drunkness in this case?


you claim to have read the reports of the case, so why are you ignoring the fact that blood alcohol couldnt e measured because it was too late, and all the alcohol had left her body by the time the tests were done. So what is your point?



free spirit said:


> did she?
> 
> where?
> 
> the only report of her court statement I've seen shows her saying 'I don't remember' in answer to every question (the bbc one Iinked to earlier)


Yes she did. 

"Did you consent to sex with him?"

"I cant remember"

"So you may have done, then?"

It's quite straightforward.


A jury saw all the relevant footage, not just the few seconds that are most helpful to the defense that have been linked to.  They have a far better idea of how pissed she was than the few MRA shits claiming now that those few seconds prove positively that Evans is innocent.


----------



## Cid (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> Really, so parliament intended to remove the ability of people to consent to sex at such relatively low levels of voluntary intoxication?
> 
> Sorry, but I call bollocks on that.



You keep coming back to the blood alcohol level, which is simply an expert witness for the defence reconstructing an estimate. Let have a look at what the appeals report says:



> The CCTV footage, which we have not seen because it is accepted that this
> was accurately summarised by the judge in his summing-up, showed that while she was inside
> the kebab shop she was unsteady on her feet. At one point she fell over and landed on the floor.
> On the other hand, outside the kebab shop she could be seen eating pizza from a large box,
> ...





> The night porter (Mr Burrough) described her as "extremely drunk"



I.e she was outwardly drunk. She looked drunk. She was drunk enough for McDonald to ask the night porter to look out for her the following morning because she was sick. She was drunk enough to piss herself. It is not your case of someone looking fairly normal but actually being drunk. 



> Also there has always previously been a very different view taken on voluntary intoxification vs involuntary intoxification in UK law, which presumably would be why involuntary intoxification was given it's own category in the legislation itself.



Yes. Are you saying that there should be a presumption of consent when you voluntarily 'intoxificate' yourself? Because otherwise perhaps it would be sensible for a jury with the evidence to decide on that.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

Cid said:


> You keep coming back to the blood alcohol level, which is simply an expert witness for the defence reconstructing an estimate. Let have a look at what the appeals report says:
> 
> I.e she was outwardly drunk. She looked drunk. She was drunk enough for McDonald to ask the night porter to look out for her the following morning because she was sick. She was drunk enough to piss herself. It is not your case of someone looking fairly normal but actually being drunk.


So anyone that has fallen over wearing heels on a night out, or looks like they might be a bit drunk is now automatically out of bounds?

well at least that's one step up from having to breathalyse anyone you might be considering asking to come home with you, but it would tend to rule out a good proportion of all the women who're out at the end of most friday / saturday nights in most city centres. And I worked in the night time economy for over a decade, so have a pretty good idea of what state people are regularly in, and probably a damn site more so than the jury or some doddery old judges in the court of appeal.

You also miss her own judgement as given in her police interview, that she felt tipsy but not out of control when she went to the pizza place after the club.



Cid said:


> Yes. Are you saying that there should be a presumption of consent when you voluntarily 'intoxificate' yourself? Because otherwise perhaps it would be sensible for a jury with the evidence to decide on that.


No, I'm saying that where she does consent, and where none of the 6 specified reasons why this consent should be invalid apply (being held prisoner, spiked etc), that it shouldn't be for the police, cps and courts to then determine at a later date that actually that consent wasn't valid consent as they've determined after the fact that she was too drunk to legally give her consent, and she says she can't remember what happened.

What I'm also saying is that setting the bar at this level of drunkeness effectively criminalises the weekly pissed up pulling rituals of a significant proportion of the population, and leaves it at the police and CPS discretion as to which of them happen to be prosecuted for their drunken one night stands, which is not a position that I'm in any way comfortable with, and certainly isn't something that I think should be happening on the say so of a handful of judges by themselves without parliamentary scrutiny and a wider debate on it.

It's a dangerous (and confused) precedent that has been set here IMO, and that's what I'm arguing against.


----------



## belboid (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> So anyone that has fallen over wearing heels on a night out, or looks like they might be a bit drunk is now automatically out of bounds?


that isn't what happened, and you are being highly dishonest.  There were a string of incidences which led a jury who had - unlike you - seen all of them to conclude the woman was very highly intoxicated.



> It's a dangerous (and confused) precedent that has been set here IMO, and that's what I'm arguing against.


It isn't a precedent at all, men are prosecuted on a similar basis regularly. CCTV evidence being shown to contradict the statments the rapist gave before they knew the CCTV evidence was available. Exactly as happened here. Evans lied, and so his testimony was held to be of very dubious value.

It's only news to you because it's a famous person being found guilty.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> Really, so parliament intended to remove the ability of people to consent to sex at such relatively low levels of voluntary intoxication?



No, I'm sure parliament didn't intend that.  And that is not the effect of this legislation.




free spirit said:


> Sorry, but I call bollocks on that.



Call what you like, mate.  But, at the time that parliament made that legislation, the fact that consent could be vitiated by intoxication was settled case law.




free spirit said:


> Also there has always previously been a very different view taken on voluntary intoxification vs involuntary intoxification in UK law, which presumably would be why involuntary intoxification was given it's own category in the legislation itself.



You don't seem to understand the effect of s.75, with reference to involuntary intoxication.  And, I suspect you don't know a great deal about the legal position on intoxication.




free spirit said:


> OK that was clumsily put, what I was getting at was that they were both based on the same case law, and seemed to be worded very similarly though admittedly the CPS guidance may actually have been updated following this verdict.



And the significance of that is?




free spirit said:


> because I can't find any other examples of it happening online, feel free to post up some other examples, and note that I said either the first, or one of the first, and that I'm talking about someone who was a bit pissed entirely of her own volition, not someone who was actually passed out or had been deliberately drugged or something.



And the significance of that is?




free spirit said:


> They decided that she was incapable of giving her consent due to being drunk, which is a very different proposition.



Er, no.  To convict they must have decided that, in addition to the fact that she didn't consent (because she lacked the capacity to do so), he had no reasonable belief that she consented.


In short, not only do you not understand the law in this area, but also you didn't hear the evidence that the jury did.  So why you're determined to dispute the verdict is suspicious.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

that isn't what happened, and you are being highly dishonest.  There were a string of incidences which led a jury who had - unlike you - seen all of them to conclude the woman was very highly intoxicated.[/quote]
so you're asuming I was unaware of the list of incidents you just supplied, on which the jury based their decision?

You're a mind reader now are you?

To me everything up to the hotel that she did is pretty much par for the course for tens of thousands of women every weekend in drunkeness terms, not to mention pretty much everyone at most midweek student nights etc.

19 year olds tend to be shit at making it through a night out in heels without falling over at least once, it's not really a good indicator of her being any more intoxicated than the next girl, certainly not that she'd be too drunk to legally be considered able to consent.



belboid said:


> It isn't a precedent at  all, men are prosecuted on a similar basis regularly. CCTV evidence being shown to contradict the statments the rapist gave before they knew the CCTV evidence was available. Exactly as happened here. Evans lied, and so his testimony was held to be of very dubious value.
> 
> It's only news to you because it's a famous person being found guilty.


that's not what I'm saying is the precedent though is it, and I've been pretty clear about this from my first post.

The precedent being that someone who got herself drunk with no assistance from the accused person at all, has been judged as being incapable of giving her consent to have consensual sex with that person due to her level of intoxification.

Previously I'm only aware of the case the CPS and I referenced, which was actually thrown out on another point by the appeals court, other than cases where the person was actually passed out, or had had her drink spiked etc. I've acknowledged there might be a few others, but I've not found any sign of them online.

As I said to the previous poster, if you don't agree that this sets a precedent then it's pretty simple for you to prove that point by providing links to the many other cases that have previously set the bar at this level of drunkeness.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> No, I'm saying that where she does consent, and where none of the 6 specified reasons why this consent should be invalid apply (being held prisoner, spiked etc), that it shouldn't be for the police, cps and courts to then determine at a later date that actually that consent wasn't valid consent as they've determined after the fact that she was too drunk to legally give her consent, and she says she can't remember what happened.



You do not understand s.75.  Or the law relating to capacity.


----------



## Dowie (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> So anyone that has fallen over wearing heels on a night out, or looks like they might be a bit drunk is now automatically out of bounds?



clearly not - remember his buddy was found not guilty....

The other footballer got drunk in a club with the girl, and she decided to stay with him in the club when her mate was leaving and accompany him back to the hotel room. The court has decided that isn't rape.

Ched Evans on the other hand - she didn't agree to go back to any hotel with him... he just let himself into the room and assumed he could do what he wanted.


----------



## belboid (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> belboid said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So have you seen all the CCTV or haven't you?  Obviously you haven't as they are not available to the general public. So you are lying when you claim to know that what she did was 'pretty much par for the course for tens of thousands of women every weekend' - you are, quite simply making things up.




> that's not what I'm saying is the precedent though is it, and I've been pretty clear about this from my first post.
> 
> The precedent being that someone who got herself drunk with no assistance from the accused person at all, has been judged as being incapable of giving her consent to have consensual sex with that person due to her level of intoxification.
> 
> ...


You are entirely wrong. The cases I was referring to also were about the woman being highly intoxicated and being unable to give consent. That drunkenness was ascertained through CCTV footage, as was the rapists targetting of a clearly drunk person for assault.  So there is absolutely no precedent here.

This case should be important as it helps to make clearer what counts as rape. Those claiming Evans is guilty are just making excuses and are saying that any woman able to stand for five seconds is fair game.  Those people are scum, and should know that they are liable to be prosecuted for rape.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

Athos said:


> Er, no.  To convict they must have decided that, in addition to the fact that she didn't consent (because she lacked the capacity to do so), he had no reasonable belief that she consented.


is that right. Should be a simple enough task for you to prove that point then.

As I understand it the jury found that she wasn't capable of giving her consent, and potentially also that the guy should have known that she wasn't capable of giving that consent.

How the fuck is someone supposed to determine that a woman isn't actually capable legally if giving her consent, how was he supposed to have a reasonable belief that this wasn't the case when presented with a woman who by all accounts actually did consent, and actually was relatively lucid, able to walk in heels, talk etc.

So far we've had one poster suggesting that blood alcohol levels are irrelevant, but then confusingly suggesting a breathalyser might be a good idea (which measures blood alcohol levels), others effectively suggesting road side drunk tests as to whether the woman can walk straight, talk coherently etc. but then dismissing the cctv footage that was used as evidence in this case that fairly clearly shows that she was able to walk reasonably well by herself... doesn't seem very clear to me.

Or maybe everyone should just base it on the opinion of the hotel night porter. Perhaps it could be part of their job description to determine when a woman is too drunk to consent on behalf of the hotels guests to stop them falling foul of this law. They and posters on here seem to have gone on his statement that she was very drunk, without clarification (AFAIK) as to in relation to what was she very drunk - ie what percentage of guests would he say would come back more drunk than her, is she the most drunk he's ever seen, or just standard friday night very drunk?



Athos said:


> In short, not only do you not understand the law in this area, but also you didn't hear the evidence that the jury did.  So why you're determined to dispute the verdict is suspicious.


oh suspicious is it. Fuck off, and maybe find some case law to back up your assertions that this case is nothing unusual while you're doing it.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

Athos said:


> You do not understand s.75.  Or the law relating to capacity.


so you keep saying, but then failing to give examples to support your case.


----------



## belboid (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> How the fuck is someone supposed to determine that a woman isn't actually capable legally if giving her consent, how was he supposed to have a reasonable belief that this wasn't the case when presented with a woman who* by all accounts* actually did consent, and actually was relatively lucid, able to walk in heels, talk etc.



It wasn't 'by all accounts' at all.  You are lying.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> The precedent being that someone who got herself drunk with no assistance from the accused person at all, has been judged as being incapable of giving her consent to have consensual sex with that person due to her level of intoxification.



Getting drunk isn't illegal. Wandering around at 3am, spotting a girl who has clearly had too much to drink, taking her back to a hotel room and TEXTING YOUR MATE TO COME OVER AND HAVE A GO is illegal, or if it's a grey area it fucking should be. And it's utterly despicable. And someone who gets a text from a mate letting them know he has a drunk woman in a hotel room, and decides to pop over and fuck someone he has never met and who is incredibly drunk is a filthy, dirty rapist bastard. And unless he's been raised by predatory abusers and is so damaged as to have no concept of right and wrong, he knows it too.

You ignorant fucking cunt.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> is that right. Should be a simple enough task for you to prove that point then.



Yes it is.  By reference to the wording of s.1 (with my emphasis added):

1 Rape

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) *A does not reasonably believe that B consents.*




free spirit said:


> oh suspicious is it. Fuck off, and maybe find some case law to back up your assertions that this case is nothing unusual while you're doing it.



You could try Malone, Howard, Dougal and H, as a starting point.


You are a prick.


----------



## ddraig (Oct 19, 2014)

amazing defence of the indefensible going on
wondered if you consider yourself to have been 'wrongly accused' in the past fs?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> amazing defence of the indefensible going on
> wondered if you consider yourself to have been 'wrongly accused' in the past fs?


Fuck right off with that.


----------



## ddraig (Oct 19, 2014)

?it is a question
hope totally wrong

e2a of course it is fine to dissect and doubt the testimony of a woman from a bit of cctv and that we all get pissed up on booze but not fine to question possible motives behind arguing the case for the defence so vehemently?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

Dowie said:


> clearly not - remember his buddy was found not guilty....
> 
> The other footballer got drunk in a club with the girl, and she decided to stay with him in the club when her mate was leaving and accompany him back to the hotel room.


oh really, that's what happened is it? Sure of that? Maybe you could give your evidence to the court then as it's not what's on the record as happening.



Dowie said:


> The court has decided that isn't rape.


after the police and CPS had prosecuted him for it because they were sure it was rape.



Dowie said:


> Ched Evans on the other hand - she didn't agree to go back to any hotel with him... he just let himself into the room and assumed he could do what he wanted.


yes he was sleazy as fuck doing that, but the case hinged legally on her capacity to give consent at that point, not on whether he was a sleazy fuck. Although I'd have to suspect that the jury actually made it's decision on the basis of their opinion of him being a sleazy fuck as opposed to the specifics of her capacity to give consent at that point, which can't have been significantly different to her capacity to give consent a few minutes earlier.


----------



## Cid (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> oh really, that's what happened is it? Sure of that? Maybe you could give your evidence to the court then as it's not what's on the record as happening.
> 
> 
> after the police and CPS had prosecuted him for it because they were sure it was rape.
> ...



You are failing to understand the case again. The jury decided, on the evidence, that she was unable to consent. This is the case for McDonald as well as Evans. McDonald was able to use the defence of having a reasonable belief in consent, Evans was not.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> ... which can't have been significantly different to her capacity to give consent a few minutes earlier.



But the two men could have held very different beliefs regarding her consent.  One may have reasonably believed from all the events leading up to sex that she consented to sex with him; the other didn't.  The fact that you go home with one man doesn't mean you consent to be fucked by any of his mates who sneak into the room.

Evans knew that. And, deep down, he and his supporters know what he is.  That they continue to defend him notwithstanding that fact says something about them.  And about you.

Until you understand s.1, stop spouting shit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 19, 2014)

ddraig said:


> ?it is a question
> hope totally wrong
> 
> e2a of course it is fine to dissect and doubt the testimony of a woman from a bit of cctv and that we all get pissed up on booze but not fine to question possible motives behind arguing the case for the defence so vehemently?


And fuck right off with that as well. It was not an innocent 'question', hence the 'quotation marks'.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 19, 2014)

Athos said:


> In short, not only do you not understand the law in this area, but also you didn't hear the evidence that the jury did. * So why you're determined to dispute the verdict is suspicious.*


This is fucking out of order. Call him stupid, call him a cunt, even call him an apologist if you have to. But not this.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is fucking out of order. Call him stupid, call him a cunt, even call him an apologist if you have to. But not this.



He is stupid, and a cunt, and an apologist.

But, also, I do suspect his motives.  Why is he so desperate to defend what Evans did?  Why does he dispute the verdict of a jury that has seen the evidence that he has not?  What does he present his own 'unique' interpretation of the law to defend Evans?


----------



## poului (Oct 19, 2014)

Why is there a conflation here with not giving a clear-cut sign either way and giving consent? If someone doesn't give a clear-cut sign and you still go ahead with it, then you've had sex with them without anything to give you reasonable grounds to believe they've given their consent. It's open and shut.


----------



## toggle (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> yes he was sleazy as fuck doing that, but the case hinged legally on her capacity to give consent at that point, not on whether he was a sleazy fuck. Although I'd have to suspect that the jury actually made it's decision on the basis of their opinion of him being a sleazy fuck as opposed to the specifics of her capacity to give consent at that point, which can't have been significantly different to her capacity to give consent a few minutes earlier.



lets spell this out for the hard of thinking

she went back to a hotel room with one man. ONE MAN. 

a jury decided that it wasn't entirely unreasonable for him to believe she consented to sex with him. even though she didn't remember doing so. something i find exceedingly problematic. but in our society, it's not supprising that there are people who will believe going to a hotel room with a man is consenting to sex. 

a jury also decided that a bloke who entered the hotel room later and found a drunk naked woman in the bed, had no reasonable grounds to believe she had consented. but decided to fuck her anyway. 





free spirit said:


> How the fuck is someone supposed to determine that a woman isn't actually capable legally if giving her consent, how was he supposed to have a reasonable belief that this wasn't the case when presented with a woman who by all accounts actually did consent, and actually was relatively lucid, able to walk in heels, talk etc.
> 
> .



cutting out your rampant bullshit, the simple solution for you is not to go into a hotel room where there is a drunk naked woman and fuck her.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

Athos said:


> You could try Malone, Howard, Dougal and H, as a starting point.
> 
> 
> You are a prick.


you could try reading about them yourself.



> Bree’s signicance lies in the fact that it is the first time the Court of Appeal has had to address the effect of voluntary heavy alcohol consumption as it applies to the law  of rape’under the 2003 Act.
> 4  It has also led the government to abandon its proposals for the revision of the consent provisions under the Act.
> Bree should also be viewed in light of an emerging academic consensus which suggests that the Act fails to provide sufficient guidance to jurors on the meaning of key aspects of the act usreus of rape.





> Unfortunately, as there was effectively no direction to approve or disapprove, a model direction for the future in this type of case does not exist. Other than the court’s endorsement of section 74, Bree tells us very little about the form future jury directions might take.





> The court was at pains to emphasise that both parties were free to choose how much to drink and free to have intercourse if they wished: indeed‘there is nothing abnormal, surprising, or even unusual about men and women having consensual intercourse when one, or other, or both have voluntarily consumed a great deal of alcohol.’





> To  illustrate the importanceof ‘capacity’ in the context of ‘consent’,and justify its concentration upon capacity, the court then turned to the pre-2003 case law,quoting the jury direction from the decision in
> Malone 24. Arguably, of particular importance is the following passage from *Malone* which recognised that absence of physical resistance on the part of the complainant is not to be equated with consent:‘Submitting to an act of sexual intercourse, because through drink she was unable physically to resist, though she wished to, is notconsent.’





> However,the matter is obfuscated by the court’s subsequent reference to Howard 27 in which it was suggested that the prosecution might have to prove physical resistance.


sorry about the formatting.

So the brie case I referred to referenced those cases, and there are clear differences between them and this situation, howard suggests physical resistance would be necessary, there was none in this case, Malone suggests that if the woman was unable to resist because of being intoxicated then this would not be equated to consent, which also wasn't the case in this situation (unless I've missed something).

This case suggests that none of that is needed, even if the woman has actually consented and is a willing participant in the sex, then due to being deemed to being drunk and not capable of making that rational decision, that consent isn't legally valid.

so that article specifically backs up my point that firstly this is a big grey area in the legislation, and secondly that this case seems to be breaking new ground in how it has defined the position of the ability of the woman to give consent due to voluntary intoxication. 

At least it does it there aren't a lot of other cases between that one in 2008, and this one 4 years later.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Oct 19, 2014)

Dunno why people are so keen to re-try the case anyway, with barely a sliver of legal background between us and only the published fraction of evidence and testimony that the jury heard, the jury that convicted Evans of rape.

The issues at hand are (a) why has Evans only had to serve half a sentence after showing no remorse, the clear implication being that rehabilitation can be achieved without admission and acceptance which is patently bollocks, (b) whether a convicted rapist can or should resume a career in football, and (c) whether Sheffield Utd re-employing Evans would be special case above and beyond (b).

If you want to go amateur Colombo and solve the case once and for all in the court of public opinion, be my guest but IMHO it's not particularly useful nor relevant.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> you could try reading about them yourself.
> 
> sorry about the formatting.
> 
> ...



I don't think you've read those cases, or even the article to which you linked!

There is no grey area; the act specifically states that capacity is an element of consent, and the case law addresses the fact that capacity can be vitiated by voluntary intoxication.  You, Evens and other like-minded individuals happen not to like that, but it remains the case.  No matter how much you claim otherwise.

And this case sets no precedent; the principle upon which it turns was established in Bree, which was itself a development on the pre-existing case law.

By the way, I notice you didn't reply on the other point i.e. that the jury did not think he had a reasonable belief that she consented.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

Cid said:


> You are failing to understand the case again.


am I really?


Cid said:


> The jury decided, on the evidence, that she was unable to consent.


right, well then this would be my entire fucking point in a nutshell.

This is breaking new ground legally as far as I'm aware, it's certainly breaking new ground compared to anything up to 2008.



Cid said:


> This is the case for McDonald as well as Evans. McDonald was able to use the defence of having a reasonable belief in consent, Evans was not.


yes, i get this as well.

My 2nd point though being how is it reasonable for someone to be expected to know that the woman who's just agreed to having sex with him is actually going to be judged as legally incapable of having made that decision, when there has been no previous case law that would state that this is the situation?

A reasonable belief being that if the woman involved is capable of actually agreeing to it, and both witnesses who can actually remember what happened say this is the case, and the porter who listened for a bit outside the door didn't say anything to contradict this, then as in all previous case law this would mean that she had consented.

You may disapprove of what went on, I know I do,  but up until this case (I think), or definitely up until 2008, what happened in this case had never previously been definitively classified as rape in the UK.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

poului said:


> Why is there a conflation here with not giving a clear-cut sign either way and giving consent? If someone doesn't give a clear-cut sign and you still go ahead with it, then you've had sex with them without anything to give you reasonable grounds to believe they've given their consent. It's open and shut.


because in this case the woman is alleged by both witnesses who were able to give statements about it to have clearly given her consent and been a willing participant.

She hasn't contradicted this, just said she can't remember, and the court didn't find that this hadn't happened either, the court merely determined that actually she was too drunk to have had the legal capacity to give her consent to having sex with him.

so basically you're agreeing with my position with that statement.


----------



## poului (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> so basically you're agreeing with my position with that statement.



LOL.


----------



## bmd (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> am I really?
> 
> right, well then this would be my entire fucking point in a nutshell.
> 
> ...



She was too drunk to consent to having sex with Evans. That was what this case pivoted on, what the judge directed the jury on. The jury decided she wasn't capable of agreeing to it, so it was a rape.


----------



## poului (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> because in this case the woman is alleged by both witnesses who were able to give statements about it to have clearly given her consent and been a willing participant.
> 
> She hasn't contradicted this, just said she can't remember, and the court didn't find that this hadn't happened either, the court merely determined that actually she was too drunk to have had the legal capacity to give her consent to having sex with him.



"the court merely determined."


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> ... the court merely determined that actually she was too drunk to have had the legal capacity to give her consent to having sex with him.



That's a lie. In addition to the fact that she was unable to consent, the jury also found (beyond reasonable doubt) that Evans had no reasonable belief that she had consented to sex with him.

Having heard all of the evidence, the jury were convinced that he had sex with a woman whom he knew hadn't consented to sex with him.

He raped her, and he knew that's what he was doing.

Whether or not you think the law should criminalise such conduct is irrelevant.  It does; that's why he was convicted.

Just stop.


----------



## Cid (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> am I really?
> 
> right, well then this would be my entire fucking point in a nutshell.
> 
> ...



Basically you're confusing issues of law and issues of fact. Judges interpret and apply law, juries judge facts (more complicated than that obviously, but will do for this). Bree establishes a point of law; it gives guidance as to how judges should direct juries in similar cases. The judge in Evans followed that precedent, giving proper direction to the jury. The jury was presented with evidence (things relating to the actual facts of the circumstances) and came to a decision based on that. Juries do not set precedent... a similar case could have a different outcome depending on the facts.

Just to note: In Bree the appeal was allowed because the judge did not properly direct the jury, it was not allowed because the circumstances in Bree definitively do not amount to rape.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

Athos said:


> I don't think you've read those cases, or even the article to which you linked!


so despite me quoting from different sections all the way through the article you contend that I've not read it. Brilliant deduction there sherlock.



Athos said:


> There is no grey area; the act specifically states that capacity is an element of consent, and the caselaw addresses the fact that capacity can be vitiated by voluntary intoxication.  You, Evens and other like-minded individuals happen not to like that, but it remains the case.  No matter how much you claim otherwise.


so you're disagreeing with the authors of the article I linked to then?



> Bree should also be viewed in light of an emerging academic consensus which suggests that the Act fails to provide sufficient guidance to jurors on the meaning of key aspects of the actus reus of rape


That being academic speak for it being a grey area, and this indicating that Brie addresses ths grey area for the first time since the 2003 act.


> Bree’s significance lies in the fact that it is the first time the Court of Appeal has had‘to address the effect of voluntary heavy alcohol consumption as it applies to the law of rape’under the 2003 Act.





Athos said:


> And this case sets no precedent; the principle upon which it turns was established in Bree, which was itself a development on the pre-existing caselaw.


Brie established the principles involved, but this case seems to have set a much lower bar for the level of intoxification that would legally remove the capacity to consent than in any previous cases that I can find - certainly than in any of the cases you referenced.



Athos said:


> By the way, I notice you didn't reply on the other point i.e. that the jury did not think he had a reasonable belief that she consented.


I've already responded to it multiple times, and I notice you've still failed to come up with any cases to back up your point that this didn't set a precedent / wasn't the first / one of the first to interpret the rulings in Brie to this extent. The ones you did provide were old cases that didn't back up your assertions.

ps isn't your specialist field EU trade law? So you presumably hold no special legal knowledge in this field, or have I got you mixed up with someone else?


----------



## Cid (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> Brie established the principles involved, but this case seems to have set a much lower bar for the level of intoxification that would legally remove the capacity to consent than in any previous cases that I can find - certainly than in any of the cases you referenced.



Bree does not set a bar for the level of intoxication (there's no 'fi' in it btw), it deliberately does not do so. It leaves it as a matter of fact for a jury to decide. Equally Evans does not set a bar, it left it up to the jury to decide. We don't have all the evidence they had, we don't have the detailed arguments of either the defence or the prosecution, we don't have the witnesses, we can't cross-examine anyone.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

Athos said:


> That's a lie. In addition to the fact that she was unable to consent, the jury also found (beyond reasonable doubt) that Evans had no reasonable belief that she had consented to sex with him.


did they now, and on what basis are you making that statement?

My understanding is that the jury made the decision on the basis that he didn't have reasonable belief that she had the capacity to consent, not that he didn't believe that she had consented.

If this isn't the case, then his attempted appeal was on very odd grounds.



Athos said:


> Having heard all of the evidence, the jury were convinced that he had sex with a woman whom he knew hadn't consented to sex with him.


no. The jury were convinced that he should have known that she was too drunk to legally be capable of giving her consent.

Which is a very different thing to knowing that someone hasn't actually consented.



Athos said:


> He raped her, and he knew that's what he was doing.
> 
> Whether or not you think the law should criminalise such conduct is irrelevant.  It does; that's why he was convicted.
> 
> Just stop.


it's not irrelevant where the case is the first, or one of the first to have ever interpreted the rape laws in this way, and where this interpretation potentially criminalises the regular drunken sexual activities of a huge number of people.

This is a bit less the case than it could have been had the other guy also been found guilty, which would directly have criminalised the activities of a good proportion of those who regularly go out on the piss with the hope of pulling - if he had, then I have no doubt at all that everyone on this thread currently arguing against me would still have maintained their position that rape is rape and that he'd been found guilty by a jury and there should be no discussion of it etc etc.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> so despite me quoting from different sections all the way through the article you contend that I've not read it. Brilliant deduction there sherlock.



You're right.  Better to have said that you don't understand it.




free spirit said:


> so you're disagreeing with the authors of the article I linked to then?



No, I'm disagreeing with what you think they're saying.




free spirit said:


> That being academic speak for it being a grey area, and this indicating that Brie addresses ths grey area for the first time since the 2003 act.



No, it's not.




free spirit said:


> Brie established the principles involved, but this case seems to have set a much lower bar for the level of intoxification that would legally remove the capacity to consent than in any previous cases that I can find - certainly than in any of the cases you referenced.



No, it doesn't.  Intoxication that deprives a person of their capacity to consent is, and always has been, the bar.




free spirit said:


> I've already responded to it multiple times, and I notice you've still failed to come up with any cases to back up your point that this didn't set a precedent / wasn't the first / one of the first to interpret the rulings in Brie to this extent. The ones you did provide were old cases that didn't back up your assertions.



It doesn't.  Bree was about the directions a judge should give a jury on the issue of intoxication, capcity and consent.  Nothing in the Evans case is at odds with Bree.  It's a complete red-herring anyway.  Whether or not it's the first or 1,000th such case since Bree makes no difference to what the law says.




free spirit said:


> ps isn't your specialist field EU trade law? So you presumably hold no special legal knowledge in this field, or have I got you mixed up with someone else?



No, you have me confused with someone else.


Overall, I don't really get what point you're trying to make.  Are you saying that, under the law as it stands Evans shouldn't have been found guilty, or that the law is 'wrong'?


----------



## poului (Oct 19, 2014)

Cid said:


> Basically you're confusing issues of law and issues of fact. Judges interpret and apply law, juries judge facts (more complicated than that obviously, but will do for this). Bree establishes a point of law; it gives guidance as to how judges should direct juries in similar cases. The judge in Evans followed that precedent, giving proper direction to the jury. The jury was presented with evidence (things relating to the actual facts of the circumstances) and came to a decision based on that. Juries do not set precedent... a similar case could have a different outcome depending on the facts.
> 
> Just to note: In Bree the appeal was allowed because the judge did not properly direct the jury, it was not allowed because the circumstances in Bree definitively do not amount to rape.



BTW what are these witness statements from the case that free spirit insists are to be deemed reliable in spite of the judge obviously concluding otherwise? Are they the same two that filmed it? There's at least one other witness statement in the case corroborating that she was too drunk to consent according the that Crimeline summary you linked earlier.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

Cid said:


> Bree does not set a bar for the level of intoxication (there's no 'fi' in it btw), it deliberately does not do so. It leaves it as a matter of fact for a jury to decide. Equally Evans does not set a bar, it left it up to the jury to decide.


and the jury decided, and the appeals court refused leave to appeal, thereby setting the legal precedent that hadn't previously been set as low as this level afaik.

Next time there's a similar case the prosecution and judge will reference this case, the police and CPS will use this case as their guide to what's an acceptable level of drunkeness etc etc etc

tis a mighty slippery slope they've started down in this case, well started down with Brie really, but gone further down with this case.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> did they now, and on what basis are you making that statement?
> 
> My understanding is that the jury made the decision on the basis that he didn't have reasonable belief that she had the capacity to consent, not that he didn't believe that she had consented.
> 
> If this isn't the case, then his attempted appeal was on very odd grounds.



As I've already pointed out (with reference to the words of s.1) your understanding is wrong.




free spirit said:


> no. The jury were convinced that he should have known that she was too drunk to legally be capable of giving her consent.
> 
> Which is a very different thing to knowing that someone hasn't actually consented.



No.  Wrong again.  To convict they'd have to be convinced that he did not have a reasonable belief that she had consented.




free spirit said:


> it's not irrelevant where the case is the first, or one of the first to have ever interpreted the rape laws in this way, and where this interpretation potentially criminalises the regular drunken sexual activities of a huge number of people.



It doesn't.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

poului said:


> BTW what are these witness statements from the case that free spirit insists are to be deemed reliable in spite of the judge obviously concluding otherwise? Are they the same two that filmed it? There's at least one other witness statement in the case corroborating that she was too drunk to consent according the that Crimeline summary you linked earlier.


The jury found that the girl was too drunk to have legally consented, therefore whether she gave consent or not was a moot point. You're assuming that the actual statements were refuted, which isn't the case afaik.


----------



## bmd (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> and the jury decided, and the appeals court refused leave to appeal, thereby setting the legal precedent that hadn't previously been set as low as this level afaik.
> 
> Next time there's a similar case the prosecution and judge will reference this case, the police and CPS will use this case as their guide to what's an acceptable level of drunkeness etc etc etc
> 
> tis a mighty slippery slope they've started down in this case, well started down with Brie really, but gone further down with this case.



What's slippery about it? Consent is consent. This case has clarified that you need to be really clear about that but I can't see this slippery slope you can.


----------



## bmd (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> The jury found that the girl was too drunk to have legally consented, therefore whether she gave consent or not was a moot point. You're assuming that the actual statements were refuted, which isn't the case afaik.



Consent is the whole point of the case. It's the fact that the jury decided that she couldn't give it due to being so intoxicated that decided the guilty verdict.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> and the jury decided, and the appeals court refused leave to appeal, thereby setting the legal precedent that hadn't previously been set as low as this level afaik.
> 
> Next time there's a similar case the prosecution and judge will reference this case, the police and CPS will use this case as their guide to what's an acceptable level of drunkeness etc etc etc
> 
> tis a mighty slippery slope they've started down in this case, well started down with Brie really, but gone further down with this case.



You don't understand how the common law works.  This case is not a precedent.  It does not establish anything that wasn't previously settled law.

Bree is a precedent which concerns the directions a judge should give to a jury regarding intoxication, capacity and consent.


----------



## Cid (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> and the jury decided, and the appeals court refused leave to appeal, thereby setting the legal precedent that hadn't previously been set as low as this level afaik.
> 
> Next time there's a similar case the prosecution and judge will reference this case, the police and CPS will use this case as their guide to what's an acceptable level of drunkeness etc etc etc
> 
> tis a mighty slippery slope they've started down in this case, well started down with Brie really, but gone further down with this case.



Wrong. You don't understand how this works. Issues of law, issues of fact. If this comes up again and a judge states that Evans sets a certain bar for intoxication there will be good grounds for an appeal and I expect a conviction would be quashed. It would be a very weird thing for a judge to do though.


----------



## Cid (Oct 19, 2014)

poului said:


> BTW what are these witness statements from the case that free spirit insists are to be deemed reliable in spite of the judge obviously concluding otherwise? Are they the same two that filmed it? There's at least one other witness statement in the case corroborating that she was too drunk to consent according the that Crimeline summary you linked earlier.



Judges don't conclude on witness statements, it's for the prosecution, defence and jury. But on the broader point of what free spirit's arguing I've sort of lost track. Lots of random extrapolations and confusion.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

Cid said:


> Judges don't conclude on witness statements, it's for the prosecution, defence and jury. But on the broader point of what free spirit's arguing I've sort of lost track. Lots of random extrapolations and confusion.



I can't tell is he's saying the law was wrongly applied, or if he's saying the law is wrong - that what Evans did ought not to be a crime.  He's hopping from misunderstanding to misunderstanding, with no clear purpose.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 19, 2014)

this has been a very informative argument.

The List expands ever onwards.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 19, 2014)

Athos said:


> I can't tell is he's saying the law was wrongly applied, or if he's saying the law is wrong - that what Evans did ought not to be a crime.  He's hopping from misunderstanding to misunderstanding, with no clear purpose.



i liked the whole "it never used to be rape before 2008" strand.  it's a shame that one wasn't teased out further.  there was a lot of potential there.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

Athos said:


> As I've already pointed out (with reference to the words of s.1) your understanding is wrong.
> 
> No.  Wrong again.  To convict they'd have to be convinced that he did not have a reasonable belief that she had consented.
> 
> It doesn't.


on what basis am I wrong?

I'd suggest you need to have a word with the judge in the case and the appeal court judges as they've obviously got this wrong as well.



> So you will need to consider the evidence of the complainant's state and decide these two questions: was she in a condition in which she was capable of making any choice one way or another? If you are sure that she was not, then she did not consent.





> He went on to direct the jury about the requirement relating to the individual defendant's belief about whether or not the complainant was consenting. He gave clear directions to the jury about how they should approach that issue in the context of the alcohol which had been consumed by
> the complainant.


The decision was clearly made on the basis of whether she was too drunk to consent, and whether he should have known that she was too drunk to consent.

Without actually having transcripts from the jury room decision making process, I don;t really see how this can be any more clear cut.


----------



## toggle (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> Next time there's a similar case the prosecution and judge will reference this case, the police and CPS will use this case as their guide to what's an acceptable level of drunkeness etc etc etc


or perhaps an acceptable level of behavior.

that maybee some more bastards who think like Evans will realise that 'too drunk to say no' isn't the same thing as having consent. something the majority of men already seem well aware of


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> i liked the whole "it never used to be rape before 2008" strand.  it's a shame that one wasn't teased out further.  there was a lot of potential there.


I'll lay odds that you had sex with people who were at least this drunk / off their faces more than once over the years, probably when you were both in a similar state.

The precedent being set here is that this level of drunkeness removes the woman's legal ability to consent to having sex with you or anybody else, so whether she's begging you for it or not it'd be rape if the police and cps later decide to get involved for whatever reason and decide that in their opinion she was actually too drunk to legally give consent.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> on what basis am I wrong?



I've already explained why.  More than once.




free spirit said:


> I don't really see how this can be any more clear cut.



Nor can I.


What are you trying to say?  That the law shouldn't criminalise what Evans did?  Or that the law was incorrectly applied in this case?


----------



## Cid (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> on what basis am I wrong?
> 
> I'd suggest you need to have a word with the judge in the case and the appeal court judges as they've obviously got this wrong as well.



Right. Precedents are points OF LAW discussed in judgments. Facts are things that happen in a specific case. Juries decide on facts after having been told how to apply the points of law by the judge. In this case, as shown in the second bit you quoted, the court of appeal is satisfied that the judge correctly informed the jury of the law. That is all the court is saying. Read the first bit you quoted. That is the judge telling the jury that they must be sure she was not capable of consenting. He notably does not say 'if you think she was just a bit pissed really then convict anyway, I don't like the cut of his jib'.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 19, 2014)

*


free spirit said:



			I'll lay odds that you had sex with people who were at least this drunk / off their faces more than once over the years, probably when you were both in a similar state.
		
Click to expand...

*


free spirit said:


> The precedent being set here is that this level of drunkeness removes the woman's legal ability to consent to having sex with you or anybody else, so whether she's begging you for it or not it'd be rape if the police and cps later decide to get involved for whatever reason and decide that in their opinion she was actually too drunk to legally give consent.



Your views are odious ... how do you know what other people have done?
The precedent being set here is nothing of the sort....the woman went to the police...they assessed, it went to the cps and they decided there was enough evidence to go to court and a jury convicted him ... yet you continue to defend a rapist and now compare other posters behaviour to this rapists in a foul attempt to imply that the judicial system and women will be now accusing innocent men of rape.


----------



## toggle (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I'll lay odds that you had sex with people who were at least this drunk / off their faces more than once over the years, probably when you were both in a similar state.
> 
> The precedent being set here is that this level of drunkeness removes the woman's legal ability to consent to having sex with you or anybody else, so whether she's begging you for it or not it'd be rape if the police and cps later decide to get involved* for whatever reason *and decide that in their opinion she was actually too drunk to legally give consent.



sorry, i don't think I've ever been in the situation where i've gone back to a bloke's place and he's decided to invite others over to fuck as well.

for whatever reason? what reason do you think they would have to get involved?


----------



## marty21 (Oct 19, 2014)

It seems likely that convicted  RAPIST Ched Evans will get another contract, if Sheff Utd don't resign him, another club will. Seem to remember Marlon King getting done for sexual assault and getting another gig ( although he is currently banged up for driving offences)
Meanwhile, Evan's victim, had to change her name and move away after getting harassed by teamEvans , her life even more damaged


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I'll lay odds that you had sex with people who were at least this drunk / off their faces more than once over the years, probably when you were both in a similar state.



Jesus fucking Christ!

I'd lay odds that most men on here have never had sex with a total stranger who is that wasted.

What the fuck are you suggesting?


----------



## toggle (Oct 19, 2014)

i've done the going back to a blokes place while pissed loads of times. and i've done the drunk sex stuff. more than a few times. i've woken up rolled over and got some more, woken up rolled over and wondered where I was, woken up and gone 'oh fuck'. i may regret saying this later, but i've also knowingly gone back to a shared house wth a couple of guys. (I've also woken up next to a preson I rather liked and wished i had done the drunk sex stuff.) what i've never done is woken up and gone and made a rape complaint.

I reckon this might well be related to the fact that i've mentioned above. that none of the people i went back with invited anyone else to come and play while i was too pissed to say no.


----------



## toggle (Oct 19, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Jesus fucking Christ!
> 
> I'd lay odds that most men on here have never had sex with a total stranger who is that wasted.
> 
> What the fuck are you suggesting?



i think he's trying to suggest there's no difference between two drunk people tumbling into bed together and finding a naked woman in bed, too drunk to say no and having a go.

i do find it rather problematic that there's so many people who can't tell the difference.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 19, 2014)

marty21 said:


> It seems likely that convicted  RAPIST Ched Evans will get another contract, if Sheff Utd don't resign him, another club will.



Hopefully not once club sponsors get harangued he won't.

Can't see Arsenal taking him on, for example. "Fly Emirates and Rape" doesn't have a great ring to it.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> on what basis am I wrong?



Oh no. Is it getting a bit frustrating to have people not believe what you're telling them?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 19, 2014)

toggle said:


> i think he's trying to suggest there's no difference between two drunk people tumbling into bed together and finding a naked woman in bed, too drunk to say no and having a go.
> 
> i do find it rather problematic that there's so many people who can't tell the difference.



Fucking hell. With an established partner, yes, we've both been mashed and got fruity. With some random smashed woman never, no way would I. I don't think I'm vanilla here.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 19, 2014)

If this had happened to a woman in your life fs, your sister or daughter say, would you still just shrug it off and say best keep quiet about it as we don't want loads of blokes up and down the country being prosecuted for raping their mates conquests, too? I seriously doubt it.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 19, 2014)

More so, had a few occasions when got smashed with female mates, got back to a place and said mate has started giving the come on, I've fancied the fuck out of them, but still not taken it anywhere as they're smashed. If they she really does want a piece of my action, she still will once not smashed. (Sadly they never seem to, but that kind of validates the point).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 19, 2014)

toggle said:


> i think he's trying to suggest there's no difference between two drunk people tumbling into bed together and finding a naked woman in bed, too drunk to say no and having a go..


Except that he didn't 'find' her. His mate arranged it for him. tbh it is rather odd, and off, that his mate got to walk away from this. If he's guilty of rape, then his mate is guilty of precuring a woman for someone to rape - he's guilty of inviting and encouraging someone to rape. Odd that this isn't any kind of offence.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

toggle said:


> or perhaps an acceptable level of behavior.
> 
> that maybee some more bastards who think like Evans will realise that 'too drunk to say no' isn't the same thing as having consent. something the majority of men already seem well aware of


it's not that she was too drunk to say no, that was the case in previous cases, and I've no issue with that interpretation of the law.

She's actually supposed to have said yes, and been a willing participant in what happened, but was then judged by the police, then CPS, then eventually a jury to have been too drunk to have actually had the capacity to have made that decision, so her consent was in effect nullified by her being drunk.

so being as that is different to the scenario you described, what's your position on a woman's right to say yes to sex with whoever she wants to whether she's drunk or not?

As effectively in order to be 100% sure to comply with the law as applied in this case, everyone would have to stop having sex with anyone who they thought could possibly at a later date be determined to have actually been too drunk to drunk to have had the legal capacity to consent, if it later turned out that they didn't really remember what had happened. Which to me is a fucking shit state of affairs.


----------



## toggle (Oct 19, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> More so, had a few occasions when got smashed with female mates, got back to a place and said mate has started giving the come on, I've fancied the fuck out of them, but still not taken it anywhere as they're smashed. If they she really does want a piece of my action, she still will once not smashed. (Sadly they never seem to, but that kind of validates the point).



i've had blokes accept that come on. never considered any of them a rapist. my point is, even if you had, that's still a completely different thing to getting a message from someone then going to a hotel room for a go on a drunk woman


----------



## bmd (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I'll lay odds that you had sex with people who were at least this drunk / off their faces more than once over the years, probably when you were both in a similar state.
> 
> The precedent being set here is that this level of drunkeness removes the woman's legal ability to consent to having sex with you or anybody else, so whether she's begging you for it or not it'd be rape if the police and cps later decide to get involved for whatever reason and decide that in their opinion she was actually too drunk to legally give consent.



You are fucking joking aren't you? This is what you've been arguing about all this time? That this case makes will make false rape allegations more likely?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

toggle said:


> i think he's trying to suggest there's no difference between two drunk people tumbling into bed together and finding a naked woman in bed, too drunk to say no and having a go.


I think you'll find that what I'm suggesting is that this is not what the court found happened in this case, and you might want to look into it a bit further prior to passing judgement.

The court did not find that she was too drunk to say no. The court found that even if she had said yes, as was alleged and not refuted, then she was too drunk for her to have had the legal capacity for her consent to be valid legally.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 19, 2014)

toggle said:


> i've had blokes accept that come on. never considered any of them a rapist. my point is, even if you had, that's still a completely different thing to getting a message from someone then going to a hotel room for a go on a drunk woman



Totally. I know of people who have taken up that offer too, but they ain't mates, more acquaintances, this is the thing, me and my mates have always considered these people to be a bit rapey.

Text message and fucking a drunk woman is so many miles removed from where I've ever been as to be well beyond the pale.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I think you'll find that what I'm suggesting is that this is not what the court found happened in this case, and you might want to look into it a bit further prior to passing judgement.
> 
> The court did not find that she was too drunk to say no. *The court found that even if she had said yes, as was alleged and not refuted, then she was too drunk for her to have had the legal capacity for her consent to be valid legally.*



So the court found that he raped her.

What the fuck are you defending here?


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 19, 2014)

I ha


free spirit said:


> it's not that she was too drunk to say no, that was the case in previous cases, and I've no issue with that interpretation of the law.
> 
> *She's actually supposed to have said yes, and been a willing participant in what happened*, but was then judged by the police, then CPS, then eventually a jury to have been too drunk to have actually had the capacity to have made that decision, so her consent was in effect nullified by her being drunk.
> 
> ...


 And this comes from the convicted rapist...if a man is capable of rape then he is capable of lying...your premise is purely based on the evidence given by the 2 men accused of rape and for reason only known to you you seem to believe them.

The police did not dream this rape up. The woman who was raped went to them and the investigated, passed it to the cps, who in turn decided there was enough evidence to go to court where a jury who were given all the facts and opinions of both the prosecution and defence and found him guilty of rape. Yet you persist with your paranoid fantasy of poor men being set up by the justice system and have decided that people on here have behaved in a similar way and could face being victimised.
She was raped...he is a rapist ... end of story


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

bmd said:


> You are fucking joking aren't you? This is what you've been arguing about all this time? That this case makes will make false rape allegations more likely?


no, I'm saying that if a woman voluntarily consents to sex, whether she's fairly pissed or not, then it's then unreasonable for the bloke to be prosecuted at a later date on the opinion of the police and CPS that the woman must have been too drunk for that consent to be valid, if it later turns out that the woman can't really remember what happened.

If she's passed out on the floor, or just incapable of actually saying anything either way, then she's obviously incapable of making that decision and it'd rightly be rape, as it had been for quite a few years. But if she's actually agreeing to it, and proactively participating in it, as is supposed to have been the case here, then that's a very different situation IMO, yet this court treated them as being the same thing - rape with a minimum of a 5 year sentence.


----------



## toggle (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I think you'll find that what I'm suggesting is that this is not what the court found happened in this case, and you might want to look into it a bit further prior to passing judgement.
> 
> The court did not find that she was too drunk to say no. The court found that even if she had said yes, as was alleged and not refuted, then she was too drunk for her to have had the legal capacity for her consent to be valid legally.



who alleged she said yes?

why wasn't that refuted?

the precident you're claiming this sets relies entirely on believing that she did say yes and her consent was overridden by the court.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So the court found that he raped her.
> 
> What the fuck are you defending here?


the court found that he raped her in circumstances that no previous court decision would have found as having been rape.

is this not worthy of a little discussion?


----------



## bmd (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> no, I'm saying that if a woman voluntarily consents to sex, whether she's fairly pissed or not, then it's then unreasonable for the bloke to be prosecuted at a later date on the opinion of the police and CPS that the woman must have been too drunk for that consent to be valid, if it later turns out that the woman can't really remember what happened.
> 
> If she's passed out on the floor, or just incapable of actually saying anything either way, then she's obviously incapable of making that decision and it'd rightly be rape, as it had been for quite a few years. But if she's actually agreeing to it, and proactively participating in it, as is supposed to have been the case here, then that's a very different situation IMO, yet this court treated them as being the same thing - rape with a minimum of a 5 year sentence.



What you're saying is that inference can be drawn from the consent given. That the consent given is valid at all times unless she's unconscious. This was the whole point of the prosecution's case. That even if she had consented she was too drunk for it to be valid. This is the point at which the free will of the accused kicks in. She's too pissed therefore I won't take advantage of her state of mind.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> the court found that he raped her in circumstances that no previous court decision would have found as having been rape.
> 
> is this not worthy of a little discussion?



Not with someone who's opening gambit is you hope Evans wins his appeal. I for one want more scum like him being to account.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> no, *I'm saying that if a woman voluntarily consents to sex, whether she's fairly pissed or not, then it's then unreasonable for the bloke to be prosecuted at a later date on the opinion of the police and CPS that the woman must have been too drunk for that consent to be valid, if it later turns out that the woman can't really remember what happened.*
> 
> If she's passed out on the floor, or just incapable of actually saying anything either way, then she's obviously incapable of making that decision and it'd rightly be rape, as it had been for quite a few years. But if she's actually agreeing to it, and proactively participating in it, as is supposed to have been the case here, then that's a very different situation IMO, yet this court treated them as being the same thing - rape with a minimum of a 5 year sentence.



how do you know that she voluntary consented to sex? Did she say that? No she didn't did she? Or are you still choosing to believe a rapist?


----------



## toggle (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> no, I'm saying that if a woman voluntarily consents to sex, whether she's fairly pissed or not, then it's then unreasonable for the bloke to be prosecuted at a later date on the opinion of the police and CPS that the woman must have been too drunk for that consent to be valid, if it later turns out that the woman can't really remember what happened.
> 
> If she's passed out on the floor, or just incapable of actually saying anything either way, then she's obviously incapable of making that decision and it'd rightly be rape, as it had been for quite a few years. But if she's actually agreeing to it, and proactively participating in it, as is supposed to have been the case here, then that's a very different situation IMO, yet this court treated them as being the same thing - rape with a minimum of a 5 year sentence.



how do you know she voluntarily consented to sex?


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2014)

'cause _the rapist_ said so. It's... quite something this thread.


----------



## ShakespearO (Oct 19, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> ....
> The police did not dream this rape up. The woman who was raped went to them and the investigated, passed it to the cps, who in turn decided there was enough evidence to go to court where a jury who were given all the facts and opinions of both the prosecution and defence and found him guilty of rape. Yet you persist with your paranoid fantasy of poor men being set up by the justice system and have decided that people on here have behaved in a similar way and could face being victimised.
> She was raped...he is a rapist ... end of story


The woman did not go to the police to claim a rape (or sexual assault). She went to report a lost / stolen handbag (she had left it in the chippy) and of having her drinks spiked (blood tests showed no such drugs in her system and in any case no one suggests she had been drinking with the two men).

She has never claimed she was raped, because she maintains that she cannot remember anything about the incident. It was the cops who set the rape investigation in motion before even speaking to her or to the men.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

toggle said:


> who alleged she said yes?
> 
> why wasn't that refuted?
> 
> the precident you're claiming this sets relies entirely on believing that she did say yes and her consent was overridden by the court.


well go have a word with the courts, as this is what happened in court.

the judges summing up makes it clear that the key issue here was whether she was too drunk to legally consent, not whether she actually consented.


----------



## toggle (Oct 19, 2014)

killer b said:


> 'cause _the rapist_ said so. It's... quite something this thread.



it's about time that the 'she liked it' bullshit as a defence against rape gets taken apart


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2014)

ShakespearO said:


> blood tests showed no such drugs in her system


apart from the most common drug used to spike people with, of course.


----------



## toggle (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> well go have a word with the courts, as this is what happened in court.
> 
> the judges summing up makes it clear that the key issue here was whether she was too drunk to consent, not whether she actually consented.



so why are you trying to claim that this sets a precident that allows a woman's consent to be overridden by the court?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

ShakespearO said:


> The woman did not go to the police to claim a rape (or sexual assault). She went to report a lost / stolen handbag (she had left it in the chippy) and of having her drinks spiked (blood tests showed no such drugs in her system and in any case no one suggests she had been drinking with the two men).
> 
> She has never claimed she was raped, because she maintains that she cannot remember anything about the incident. It was the cops who set the rape investigation in motion before even speaking to her or to the men.


careful now, that almost looks like you've done a bit of digging into the situation rather than coming out with a knee jerk reaction.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

toggle said:


> so why are you trying to claim that this sets a precident that allows a woman's consent to be overridden by the court?


because it does.

The court didn't find that she hadn't consented, the court found that it was irrelevant if she had consented or not, as in the courts judgement she was too drunk to have had the legal capacity to give that consent anyway, and also that the other person should have somehow known that this was the case.


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2014)

...and that evans had no reason to believe he had consent, the half of the equation you keep forgetting about.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

killer b said:


> apart from the most common drug used to spike people with, of course.


if she was spiked then it's unlikely to have been by either of these men given that they only came across her after she'd been out of the club for an hour, and most of the evidence to support her being too drunk to consent came from the period before she'd met them, or pretty much immediately afterwards. She'd have had to have been spiked in the taxi with some very fast acting drug in order for it to have affected her by the time she got to the hotel.

Note that she says she has no memory of things from before she'd met either of them.

Given that she'd had 4 double vodkas in the space of 90 minutes though, my suspicion would be that she hadn't been spiked at all, but her memory loss was a result of 8 shots of vodka hitting the brain in a fairly short space of time. I'm sure we both have a fair amount of experience of this sort of scenario. I can easily see though that she could have been relatively lucid and with it an hour or more later after having some food, fresh air etc even while still being in a memory loss situation, which is what the expert witness for the defence was arguing.


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2014)

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Do you think she's lying?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

killer b said:


> ...and that evans had no reason to believe he had consent, the half of the equation you keep forgetting about.


you mean other than what she is alleged to have said when asked?

and remember both of them would have been interviewed separately, and both of them said the pretty much the same thing about what she'd said.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

killer b said:


> I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Do you think she's lying?


ffs all she's said is she can't remember what happened, that's it.

she's not contradicted the 2 guys version of events, just said she can't remember.

so no I'm not saying she's lying, I'm saying the way the law was applied here is a fucking mess.


----------



## bmd (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> ffs all she's said is she can't remember what happened, that's it.
> 
> she's not contradicted the 2 guys version of events, just said she can't remember.
> 
> so no I'm not saying she's lying, I'm saying the way the law was applied here is a fucking mess.



Are you saying that the law cannot prosecute someone who has taken advantage of a vulnerable person?


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> because it does.
> 
> The court didn't find that she hadn't consented, the court found that it was irrelevant if she had consented or not, as in the courts judgement she was too drunk to have had the legal capacity to give that consent anyway, and also that the other person should have somehow known that this was the case.



The issue of consent was not irrelevant.  How could it be, given the wording of s.1?!  That you think it is just goes to show that you don't understand the concept of consent.  The fact is that even a 'yes' cannot amount to consent if the person did not have capacity to consent (in this case as a result of voluntary intoxication).  And what s.1 requires is that the defendant "does not reasonably believe that [the victim] consents".  So let's be clear about it, to convict, the jury must have been sure that he did not believe she had consented.

Just to clarify: do you think that the law is wrong i.e. that what he did ought not to be criminalised?  Or that the law was wrongly applied in this case?  I've asked this three times now, and it would help if I could understand where you're coming from.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 19, 2014)

killer b said:


> I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Do you think she's lying?


I read that as the opposite - that fs is saying that it's quite reasonable to believe that she lost hours of her memory from that night due to drinking a lot of vodka in a short space of time, even though she was walking around, talking and doing stuff during those hours. He's saying that similar has happened to him. It has to me too.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

Cid said:


> Right. Precedents are points OF LAW discussed in judgments. Facts are things that happen in a specific case. Juries decide on facts after having been told how to apply the points of law by the judge. In this case, as shown in the second bit you quoted, the court of appeal is satisfied that the judge correctly informed the jury of the law. That is all the court is saying. Read the first bit you quoted. *That is the judge telling the jury that they must be sure she was not capable of consenting.* He notably does not say 'if you think she was just a bit pissed really then convict anyway, I don't like the cut of his jib'.


you don't appear to appreciate that you're making the same point as me.

the decision was based on whether or not she was capable of consenting to sex legally due to her level of drunkeness.

the precedent being set here being what that level of drunkeness was, which is well below the levels in previous cases.

Also AFAIK this is the first case in which the defendants have actually stated that the woman did fully consent (and not been contradicted on that by anyone including the woman involved) in the previous case I linked to the guys defence was based on implied consent rather than her actually specifically giving her consent.


----------



## Cid (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> you don't appear to appreciate that you're making the same point as me.
> 
> the decision was based on whether or not she was capable of consenting to sex legally due to her level of drunkeness.
> 
> the precedent being set here being what that level of drunkeness was, which is well below the levels in previous cases.



No it isn't. I've explained why and genuinely don't know how I can make it more clear.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 19, 2014)

Aside to free spirit's dubious defending here; anyone else noticed something about the girlfriend and her father? rape/power etc?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I read that as the opposite - that fs is saying that it's quite reasonable to believe that she lost hours of her memory from that night due to drinking a lot of vodka in a short space of time, even though she was walking around, talking and doing stuff during those hours. He's saying that similar has happened to him. It has to me too.


and to killer b as well, happens to the best of us, and when it first happens it can be a bit of a shock and it's fairly normal to decide you must have been spiked.

I remember the first time it happened to me, I was absolutely certain I must have been spiked, but looking back on it now, I do remember having a significant number of shots of tequila in a short space of time just prior to engaging drunk autopilot and attempting to navigate my way home to bed via a police wagon, and a plant pot through my front window, and an ambulance and 2 days in hospital. But I was lucid enough to somehow talk the police into giving me a lift home and taking the handcuffs off rather than making me spend a night in the cells.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> the precedent being set here being what that level of drunkeness was, which is well below the levels in previous cases.



Jury verdicts do not (and cannot) amount to precedents.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> the court found that he raped her in circumstances that no previous court decision would have found as having been rape.
> 
> is this not worthy of a little discussion?



You can't possibly assert what another jury might or might not have concluded.


----------



## belboid (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> the court found that he raped her in circumstances that no previous court decision would have found as having been rape.
> 
> is this not worthy of a little discussion?


As I have repeatedly said, and you have repeatedly ignored, that simply is not true. It is a well established legal principle.  You keep lying.  Of course you have to to maintain your vile attitude on this thread. You, and ShakespearO are simply coming out with drivel to justify your reactionary, rape apologist shite.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

Athos said:


> The issue of consent was not irrelevant.  How could it be, given the wording of s.1?!  That you think it is just goes to show that you don't understand the concept of consent.  The fact is that even a 'yes' cannot amount to consent if the person did not have capacity to consent (in this case as a result of voluntary intoxication).  And what s.1 requires is that the defendant "does not reasonably believe that [the victim] consents".  So let's be clear about it, to convict, the jury must have been sure that he did not believe she had consented.


the issue of what specifically she had said was irrelevant, as she was judged to have not had the legal capacity for her words to have any legal standing due to her level of drunkness.

and no, the judges summing up is pretty specific on this, it wasn't just whether he reasonably believed that she had consented, but also whether he reasonably believed that she had the capacity for that consent to be legally valid.



> He went on to direct the jury about the requirement relating to the individual defendant's belief about whether or not the complainant was consenting. *He gave clear directions to the jury about how they should approach that issue in the context of the alcohol which had been consumed by the complainant.*





Athos said:


> Just to clarify: do you think that the law is wrong i.e. that what he did ought not to be criminalised?  Or that the law was wrongly applied in this case?  I've asked this three times now, and it would help if I could understand where you're coming from.


If someone clearly consents, then IMO that should mean that the sex is consensual.

If someone isn't actually capable of giving their consent, then obviously it isn't consensual, but this case really redefines what that means, as previously it meant if they were physically incapable of actually giving their consent, now it means even if they've actually given their consent clearly verbally, then that's still not enough, if she's later judged to have been too drunk for that consent to be valid, then what she did or did not say at the time is now irrelevant.

And I'll point out again, that this is the first time I'm aware of in UK law that a person getting themselves drunk voluntarily has legally removed their capacity to actually make a legal decision about their actions. In all other areas of UK law, someone in that state who'd say attacked someone in the pizza place, or committed criminal damage, or attacked a copper etc would have been legally responsible for their actions, but yet they are now apparently not capable of deciding for themselves if they want to have sex with someone or not.

This interpretation of the law stinks, it's bad law that can't possibly be applied evenly otherwise the prisons would be over flowing with people who'd had drunken one night stands.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

Athos said:


> You can't possibly assert what another jury might or might not have concluded.


I can assert what previous case law was, that's pretty much how it works.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> no, I'm saying that if a woman voluntarily consents to sex, whether she's fairly pissed or not, then it's then unreasonable for the bloke to be prosecuted at a later date...



You've no idea whether or not the jury accepted the rapist's claims that she was an enthusiastic participant.


----------



## belboid (Oct 19, 2014)

ShakespearO said:


> The woman did not go to the police to claim a rape (or sexual assault). She went to report a lost / stolen handbag (she had left it in the chippy) and of having her drinks spiked (blood tests showed no such drugs in her system and in any case no one suggests she had been drinking with the two men).


this is true.  And it shows why that other rape apologist 1927 was making up shite about the victim having a long history of making up rape claims.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

belboid said:


> As I have repeatedly said, and you have repeatedly ignored, that simply is not true. It is a well established legal principle.  You keep lying.  Of course you have to to maintain your vile attitude on this thread. You, and ShakespearO are simply coming out with drivel to justify your reactionary, rape apologist shite.


no it isn't, I've been back and quoted the previous case law on this, feel free to refute it, but you can't simply state that something is true because you say that it is.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I can assert what previous case law was, that's pretty much how it works.



Yes, you can assert it.  In the same way that you can assert the moon is made of cheese  You'd be wrong on both counts, though.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

Athos said:


> You've no idea whether or not the jury accepted the rapist's claims that she was an enthusiastic participant.


neither do you.

I know that the judgement as directed meant that whether she was or wasn't was irrelevant to the decision.


----------



## belboid (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> no it isn't, I've been back and quoted the previous case law on this, feel free to refute it, but you can't simply state that something is true because you say that it is.


You try and claim this is something different, but it isnt.  You have provided zero justification for your view.  Not even our quickly googled case law backs you up. Now FOAD


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

Athos said:


> Yes, you can assert it.  In the same way that you can assert the moon is made of cheese  You'd be wrong on both counts, though.


really, well I've quoted the previous case law, including those that you supplied, you've merely repeated the same lines over and over again.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

belboid said:


> You try and claim this is something different, but it isnt.  You have provided zero justification for your view.  Not even our quickly googled case law backs you up. Now FOAD


we're onto page 6 of a long list of justifications for my views, referenced to various sources, so whether you agree with me or not, you can't actually state that I've provided zero justification for my views. You on the other hand...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 19, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> how do you know that she voluntary consented to sex? Did she say that? No she didn't did she? Or are you still choosing to believe a rapist?


She doesn't know. So it comes down to believability of the men's story. I don't know the details of that, but you're in a bit of a logical bind if you're prejudging him as a rapist _before_ listening to what he says happened.


----------



## belboid (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> we're onto page 6 of a long list of justifications for my views, referenced to various sources, so whether you agree with me or not, you can't actually state that I've provided zero justification for my views. You on the other hand...


because the 'evidence' for your view is entirely spurious.  YOU claim that she gave 'clear verbal' permission for sex.  But that was NEVER established.  It was merely claimed by Evans.  Evans who is was shown lied to the police and court.  And thus wasn't believed.  You are using badly googled info simply to provide a smokescreen for your excusing a rapists lies.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> She doesn't know. So it comes down to believability of the men's story. I don't know the details of that, but you're in a bit of a logical bind if you're prejudging him as a rapist _before_ listening to what he says happened.



No I aint...he is a convicted rapist...so I am not prejudging anything...a jury who heard all relevant info found him guilty of rape so he is a rapist.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

belboid said:


> YOU claim that she gave 'clear verbal' permission for sex.


oh do I now? If I have then I've obviously made a mistake somewhere in one of my posts, as I've made great efforts through this thread not to say that she definitely did, but to say that this is what was alleged, and that this wasn't refuted in court (to my knowledge), and that either way this wasn't what the judgement relied on.



belboid said:


> You are using badly googled info simply to provide a smokescreen for your excusing a rapists lies.


so to be clear, is it the court of appeal decision on this that you're saying is badly googled info, or the court of appeal decision on brie, or the legal discussion paper discussing precisely this issue?

and what better googled info have you brought to this thread to support your viewpoint?


----------



## belboid (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> oh do I now? If I have then I've obviously made a mistake somewhere in one of my posts, as I've made great efforts through this thread not to say that she definitely did, but to say that this is what was alleged, and that this wasn't refuted in court (to my knowledge), and that either way this wasn't what the judgement relied on.


consent isn't the issue?  Yes it is.



> so to be clear, is it the court of appeal decision on this that you're saying is badly googled info, or the court of appeal decision on brie, or the legal discussion paper discussing precisely this issue?
> 
> and what better googled info have you brought to this thread to support your viewpoint?


Read what I wrote, your quotes are irrelevant, because they are not the key pieces of evidence. Evans lying [in the view of the jury] was.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

belboid said:


> because the 'evidence' for your view is entirely spurious.  YOU claim that she gave 'clear verbal' permission for sex.  But that was NEVER established.  It was merely claimed by Evans.  Evans who is was shown lied to the police and court.  And thus wasn't believed.  You are using badly googled info simply to provide a smokescreen for your excusing a rapists lies.


ok, I've now gone back through all your posts, and you've not referenced a single claim you've made on this thread. Just stated your opinion, and your recollection of what you think happened as fact and expected that everyone should merely accept this.

unless you were on the jury or something, then I'd have to say that your position here is a little untenable. I'm providing a smokescreen by backing up my assertions with court of appeal judgements, previous case law etc, but you're perfectly fine for never backing anything up that you've stated?

I think you're pretty much making my earlier point about the difficulty in holding reasoned debate on tricky issues on urban these days.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

belboid said:


> consent isn't the issue?  Yes it is.


the person's capacity to give their consent while drunk is the issue, as made clear in the judges summing up to the jury, that I've quoted at least twice recently.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 19, 2014)

Most of the disputes and differences in facts and law on this thread appear to have been dealt with in the Judgement of the renewed application for leave to
appeal against both conviction and sentence 

22. The second matter that he suggested required attention was a direction to the jury that if they found (contrary to the evidence given by the expert called for the applicant) that the complainant had no memory of events in the bedroom, that did not mean that she did not consent. The judge addressed this issue in clear terms. He began by directing the jury in the precise words of the relevant statutory provision:
"A complainant consents if, and only if, she has the freedom and
capacity to make a choice, and she exercised that choice to agree
to sexual intercourse."

He then addressed the implications and consequences of the evidence that the complainant had been drinking and had possibly taken cocaine. He said:
"There are two ways in which drink and/or drugs can affect an
individual who is intoxicated. First, it can remove inhibitions. A
person may do things when intoxicated which she would not do,
or be less likely to do if sober. Secondly, she may consume so
much alcohol and/or drugs that it affects her state of awareness.
So you need to reach a conclusion upon what was the
complainant's state of intoxication, such as you may find it to be.
Was she just disinhibited, or had what she had taken removed
her capacity to exercise a choice?"
He went on to explain:
"A woman clearly does not have the capacity to make a choice if
she is completely unconscious through the effects of drink and
drugs, but there are various stages of consciousness, from being
wide awake to dim awareness of reality. In a state of dim and
drunken awareness you may, or may not, be in a condition to
make choices. So you will need to consider the evidence of the
complainant's state and decide these two questions: was she in a
condition in which she was capable of making any choice one
way or another? If you are sure that she was not, then she did not
consent. If, on the other hand, you conclude that she chose to
agree to sexual intercourse, or may have done, then you must find
the defendants not guilty."


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> the issue of what specifically she had said was irrelevant, as she was judged to have not had the legal capacity for her words to have any legal standing due to her level of drunkness.



The issue of *what she said* was of limited significance; that's not what you claimed, though.  You said that *consent was irrelevant*.  You were wrong.




free spirit said:


> and no, the judges summing up is pretty specific on this, it wasn't just whether he reasonably believed that she had consented, but also whether he reasonably believed that she had the capacity for that consent to be legally valid.



Again, you misunderstand.  If he did not reasonably believe that she had the capacity to consent, then it follows that he cannot reasonably have believed that she had, in fact, consented, notwithstanding what she may or may not have said.




free spirit said:


> If someone clearly consents, then IMO that should mean that the sex is consensual.



Ok.  So in a case where someone says 'yes' but doesn't have the capacity to consent, has she consented or not?




free spirit said:


> If someone isn't actually capable of giving their consent, then obviously it isn't consensual, but this case really redefines what that means, as previously it meant if they were physically incapable of actually giving their consent, now it means even if they've actually given their consent clearly verbally, then that's still not enough, if she's later judged to have been too drunk for that consent to be valid, then what she did or did not say at the time is now irrelevant.



But you're wrong about what previous cases said, and what this one means.




free spirit said:


> And I'll point out again, that this is the first time I'm aware of in UK law that a person getting themselves drunk voluntarily has legally removed their capacity to actually make a legal decision about their actions.



You are wrong.  There are previous cases in which it was made clear that voluntary intoxication can remove capacity, so as to vitiate consent.  This was explicitly addressed in Bree, and before that, in Lang.




free spirit said:


> In all other areas of UK law, someone in that state who'd say attacked someone in the pizza place, or committed criminal damage, or attacked a copper etc would have been legally responsible for their actions, but yet they are now apparently not capable of deciding for themselves if they want to have sex with someone or not.



You do realise that those things are crimes, unlike being raped?  Otherwise guilty people ought not to be afforded a defence by virtue of their own voluntary intoxication.  But you seem to be suggesting that they ought to be afforded a defence by virtue of their victim's voluntary intoxication!




free spirit said:


> This interpretation of the law stinks, it's bad law that can't possibly be applied evenly otherwise the prisons would be over flowing with people who'd had drunken one night stands.



Your obfuscating again.  Is the law (principally s.1 and the case law around consent) wrong?  Or has it simply been wrongly applied here?


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I think you're pretty much making my earlier point about the difficulty in holding reasoned debate on tricky issues on urban these days.


fuck off with this bullshit. you would have been roasted on this 10 years ago too.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 19, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So he's coming out this week, having served half his sentence for rape.
> 
> Judy Finnigan has declared that his rape was not as bad as other rapes
> 
> ...



I heard this morning that his case has been 'fast tracked' to the Criminal Review Board. There may be more to this than is first seen.


----------



## bmd (Oct 19, 2014)

As far as him playing football again goes I think it's a shit example for kids, to have a convicted, unrepentant rapist enjoying a high profile job.

Look lads, get rapey and as long as you're talented enough then all will be well. Lasses, well...you know, sorry and all that.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> really, well I've quoted the previous case law, including those that you supplied, you've merely repeated the same lines over and over again.



It seems I have little choice but to repeat myself.  Because you just don't don't get, despite the fact that it really can't be made any clearer.  You've selectively quoted case law without understanding what it means.  That proves nothing.


----------



## belboid (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> ok, I've now gone back through all your posts, and you've not referenced a single claim you've made on this thread. Just stated your opinion, and your recollection of what you think happened as fact and expected that everyone should merely accept this.


I have referred back to the courst case, the facs as laid out there.  As I am not trying to excuse rape, I dont need to reference anything else.

I have also referenced several times where you have - like Evans - explicitly lied. So your claims, like his, are to be taken with a fucking big dose of salt.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> really, well I've quoted the previous case law, including those that you supplied, you've merely repeated the same lines over and over again.



It seems I have little choice but to repeat myself.  Because you just don't don't get, despite the fact that it really can't be made any clearer.  You've selectively quoted case law without understanding what it means.  That proves nothing.


----------



## belboid (Oct 19, 2014)

Athos said:


> It seems I have little choice but to repeat myself.  Because you just don't don't get, despite the fact that it really can't be made any clearer.  You've selectively quoted case law without understanding what it means.  That proves nothing.


Quite, its the classic conspiraloon bullshit - provide lots of smoke to cover up their main, dishonest and bullshit, claim.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 19, 2014)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think it's also to do with the fact that Clayton wasn't convicted. They both penetrated her so Ched Evans' supporters are saying it doesn't make sense that one is convicted and the other not.
> 
> Maybe it doesn't make sense but the victim went back to the hotel with just Clayton. Evans joined them later and walked in on them. Two friends watched through a window. I think the jury decided she consented to have sex with Clayton but since Evans turned up later the whole "well you went home with him" thing didn't really apply.



Ah. That explains a lot. I haven't been following the case, so didn't realise that a potential miscarriage would be based on a 'procedural matter', rather than on actual guilt or innocence. Having read the details of the case, now, there is no doubt as to his guilt. To have his conviction overturned on the basis, that someone else doing the same thing was found 'not guilty' would be a miscarriage.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> yes he was sleazy as fuck doing that, but the case hinged legally on her capacity to give consent at that point, not on whether he was a sleazy fuck.



And there we are, you've done a Galloway. He's not a rapist, just a sleazy bastard. It's not rape, just bad etiquette. In your mind, clearly, what most people see as rape is just being a bit sleazy.

Not only do you fail to grasp that what you call sleazy is the predatory calculating behaviour of an abuser, you also keep insisting she couldn't have been that drunk and therefore everything that happened was consensual. 

Why don't you actually think about it? She's in a hotel room having sex. Lets assume at this point it's genuinely consensual, for the sake of argument. Then a total stranger (who had to beg the night staff for a key card don't forget) bursts in and says "Can I join in?" In that situation, how many sober people would be able to say "No, I consent only to sex with the person I came here with" calmly and straight away? Now how likely is it that when Evans burst in to the total surprise of the woman (if she was aware of it) that despite the drink and the fact that she was in the middle of having sex with somebody in THEIR hotel room, she immediately understood exactly what Evans meant and vocally consented straight away?


----------



## 1%er (Oct 19, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Ah. That explains a lot. I haven't been following the case, so didn't realise that a potential miscarriage would be based on a 'procedural matter', rather than on actual guilt or innocence. Having read the details of the case, now, there is no doubt as to his guilt. To have his conviction overturned on the basis, that someone else doing the same thing was found 'not guilty' would be a miscarriage.


From the above link:
20. Given that direction, it was open to the jury to convict both defendants, to acquit both
defendants, or to convict one and not the other defendant. That was the point of a joint trial in
which separate verdicts were to be returned. It was open to the jury to consider, as it seems to us, that even if the complainant did not, in fact, consent to sexual intercourse with either of the
two men, that in the light of his part in what happened
--
the meeting in the street and so on
--
McDonald may reasonably have believed that the complainant had consented to sexual activity
with him, and at the same time concluded that the applicant knew perfectly well that she had not
consented to sexual activity with him (the applicant). The circumstances in which each of
the two men came to be involved in the sexual activity was quite different; so indeed were the
circumstances in which they left her. These seem to us to be matters entirely open to the jury.
There is no inconsistency.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 19, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I heard this morning that his case has been 'fast tracked' to the Criminal Review Board. There may be more to this than is first seen.



Wouldn't read too much into this, more to do with getting it done and dusted as it's so high profile.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 19, 2014)

ShakespearO said:


> The woman did not go to the police to cprosecuteda rape (or sexual assault). She went to report a lost / stolen handbag (she had left it in the chippy) and of having her drinks spiked (blood tests showed no such drugs in her system and in any case no one suggests she had been drinking with the two men).
> 
> She has never claimed she was raped, because she maintains that she cannot remember anything about the incident. It was the cops who set the rape investigation in motion before even speaking to her or to the men.


If you seriously believe she reported her bag missing and the police decided on a whim to prosecute him, and the cps went along with it, as did a judge and a jury then it suggest you are in a dark place. There has been no reason given as to why the judiciary would victimise him...suggesting that he was not victimised...and he is actually acrapist


----------



## 1%er (Oct 19, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Wouldn't read too much into this, more to do with getting it done and dusted as it's so high profile.


I just went to the CCRC site and firefox tells me it is not a trusted site 
I wanted to look up their "policy on prioritisation"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> blood alcohol levels are sufficient to get people done for drink driving on a regular basis, but not sufficient to determine someone's level of drunkness in this case?



When you're nicked drink-driving, you're breathalysed at the scene, and blood is taken back at the copshop. If you're involved in a drunken affray, blood is taken at the copshop. In both cases, a sample is usually taken within an hour of the offence.  In this case, a blood sample was taken half a day later, by which time her liver could have metabolised a substantial amount of alcohol. IIRC the liver can clear about 2 units per hour.



> right, well what would you suggest?
> 
> 
> no you've missed my point - you have made this up, it has nothing to do with this case, so bringing it up is bullshit.



I haven't made *anything* up. All I've done is pointed out that such a drug *could* have been used, and that if it *was* used, then the tests available at the time probably wouldn't have detected it half a day later.  For some reason you've taken this as meaning that I'm claiming that Evans used a date-rape drug, probably because you're a twat.



> seriously.
> 
> you seriously think everyone on a night out should be carrying a breathalyser and breathalysing anyone they might be considering asking to come home with them prior to popping the question?
> 
> get your lips around this breathlyser tube love you've pulled.....



I think that if you're so fucking worried about the possibility of getting falsely nicked for rape, then you should do whatever you can to assuage your paranoia.



> ah I'm sorry love, but you seem to have had one too many of those voddie and cokes, so I'm going to have to decline your invitation for a night of passion on the basis that you're too drunk to make that decision rationally.
> 
> 
> really? an informed debate in which one side is calling me rape apologist cunt and the like, despite mostly not having bothered to actually do any research beyond the tabloid headlines?
> ...



Yep, you're definitely a twat.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 19, 2014)

Rather than clog the thread by including Athos's lengthy responses, his remarks do raise a point. 

'Voluntary intoxication'. This is used time and time again as defence or mitigation claim in criminal cases. 

It is time that Civil Law came into line with Military Law on this matter.

'So Sas, you smacked the C.O. whilst pissed' 'Yes Sir', right, fined £100.00 for being drunk, 3 months in clink for smacking the C.O.

Voluntary intoxication should not be allowed as a defence, but should be regarded as a deliberately aggravating factor.

Let me make something absolutely clear though, I am not saying that any woman (or man) who happens to have too much to drink, is responsible for any criminal act committed on them.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

1%er said:


> I just went to the CCRC site and firefox tells me it is not a trusted site
> I wanted to look up their "policy on prioritisation"






			
				CRC said:
			
		

> Do some cases get priority?
> We look at cases in the order in which they arrive, but we deal with the
> cases of people in prison before those of people who are out of prison
> or who didn’t go to prison. If you received a life sentence and are out
> ...


----------



## 1%er (Oct 19, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Rather than clog the thread by including Athos's lengthy responses, his remarks do raise a point.
> 
> 'Voluntary intoxication'. This is used time and time again as defence or mitigation claim in criminal cases.
> 
> ...


Two different things, one is a person being drunk and committing a crime  the other is being drunk and being the victim of a crime

Edit as my question seems to have disappeared, is being drunk "allowed as a defence" under English law?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> When you're nicked drink-driving, you're breathalysed at the scene, and blood is taken back at the copshop. If you're involved in a drunken affray, blood is taken at the copshop. In both cases, a sample is usually taken within an hour of the offence.  In this case, a blood sample was taken half a day later, by which time her liver could have metabolised a substantial amount of alcohol. IIRC the liver can clear about 2 units per hour.
> 
> One, and only that amount in a seasoned drinker.
> 
> ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I'll lay odds that you had sex with people who were at least this drunk / off their faces more than once over the years, probably when you were both in a similar state.



I'm really hoping that you're *not* projecting past experience onto others. Just because you may have engaged in drunken fucks, doesn't mean that everyone else has, however fervently you assert it.



> The precedent being set here is that this level of drunkeness removes the woman's legal ability to consent to having sex with you or anybody else, so whether she's begging you for it or not it'd be rape if the police and cps later decide to get involved for whatever reason and decide that in their opinion she was actually too drunk to legally give consent.



You don't understand precedent.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Except that he didn't 'find' her. His mate arranged it for him. tbh it is rather odd, and off, that his mate got to walk away from this. If he's guilty of rape, then his mate is guilty of precuring a woman for someone to rape - he's guilty of inviting and encouraging someone to rape. Odd that this isn't any kind of offence.



"Procuring" *is* an offence, but as the CPS were originally prosecuting him for rape, they didn't push a procuring charge, and when he was acquitted of rape, anything else went by the by.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

Athos said:


> The issue of *what she said* was of limited significance; that's not what you claimed, though.  You said that *consent was irrelevant*.  You were wrong.


semantics, it amounts to the same thing.



Athos said:


> Again, you misunderstand.  If he did not reasonably believe that she had the capacity to consent, then it follows that he cannot reasonably have believed that she had, in fact, consented, notwithstanding what she may or may not have said.


no, I've not misunderstood, I've outlined it as clearly as I can, and am saying the same thing as you are.


Athos said:


> Ok.  So in a case where someone says 'yes' but doesn't have the capacity to consent, has she consented or not?


as of this case she hasn't consented legally, prior to this case she would have been viewed as having consented.



Athos said:


> OBut you're wrong about what previous cases said, and what this one means.


oh really? Well I've the one who's specifically quoted the previous case law on the subject to back up my point, you're the one who merely asserts that I've got it wrong but refuses to give any specifics.



Athos said:


> You are wrong.  There are previous cases in which it was made clear that voluntary intoxication can remove capacity, so as to vitiate consent.  This was explicitly addressed in Bree, and before that, in Lang.'


OK, sorry for the delayed response, but I've just been through all the previous judgements via the R v Malone court of appeal judgement, and confirmed what I thought, that none of them had previously involved a situation where the defendants were both claiming that the woman involved had actually consented, and the woman involved had given no evidence to the contrary, as in this case.

All of them in one way or another had the woman saying that she'd not consented, with Malone being about the closest to saying that he thought she had, although only implied consent as opposed to this case where both the male witnesses stated that she had given her verbal consent to having sex with the 2nd guy, and the woman has merely said that she can't actually remember what happened.

And this was the most recent appeal court judgement on the matter prior to this case from R v Bree



> However where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, *and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape*.


this is also a repeat of the previous R v Malone judges summary.

In drink in this case the woman allegedly agreed to have sex with him, and didn't offer any evidence to the contrary in court, and yet he was found guilty on the basis that she was actually judged to have been too drunk to have had the capacity to give her consent.



> In the second case to which reference was made, the appellant Lang was charged with rape, the only effective issue at the trial being whether the girl had consented. The prosecution’s case was that the girl had submitted only after a struggle and in the belief that further resistance was useless. The defence introduced the question of her drinking in an attempt to show that she might well have consented, being in a less inhibited state of mind than she would have been had she taken no drink.





Athos said:


> You do realise that those things are crimes, unlike being raped?  Otherwise guilty people ought not to be afforded a defence by virtue of their own voluntary intoxication.  But you seem to be suggesting that they ought to be afforded a defence by virtue of their victim's voluntary intoxication!


no, I'm suggesting that if someone is capable of being held criminally responsible for their actions when drunk, then they also ought to be held to be capable of being responsible for their actions when deciding whether or not to agree to have sex with someone.



Athos said:


> Your obfuscating again.  Is the law (principally s.1 and the case law around consent) wrong?  Or has it simply been wrongly applied here?


It looks to have been wrongly applied in this situation to me. The previous court of appeal judgements make broad sense, and I don't have a problem with them. This one seems inconsistent with all of them. The judge seems to have effectively directed the jury that if she was drunk then she couldn't legally give her consent, which is the opposite of the appeal court ruling in Bree.



> So you will need to consider the evidence of the complainant's state and decide these two questions: *was she in a condition in which she was capable of making any choice one way or another? If you are sure that she was not, then she did not consent.*


which is a lot different to the bree judgement


> However where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, *and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape*.


Had the judge merely read that out rather than embellishing it in his own words, then I'd strongly suspect that the jury would have returned a different verdict.

I also don't think the specific grounds used in his appeal were done well, as they make no reference to the Bree judgement compared to the judges summary. Presumably this is why he's replaced his legal team.

I think that's me done with this topic for a while, hopefully this has helped to clarify my position on it, and why I've been saying all along that this judgement is at odds with all previous judgements on the subject.

If people want to think of me as a rape apologist etc then that's their choice, I've merely been pointing out that in no previous court case would this have been considered as being rape, and that I think this sets a dangerous precedent that really did deserve at the very least to go to the court of appeal as it seems to be at odds with their previous rulings on the subject.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

killer b said:


> fuck off with this bullshit. you would have been roasted on this 10 years ago too.


I can remember a fairly robust, but detailed discussion around this law back in 2002/3 when it was going through parliament, and the level of debate was a hell of a lot more informed, and less prone to random abuse from people who couldn't even be arsed to investigate the specifics of the situation being discussed.

Maybe you're right though, maybe it has been this shit for the last 10 years. Shame, this place once had so much promise.


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2014)

Really. Maybe that's because discussing a law going through parliament doesn't involve poring over videos of rape victims to assess how pissed they are.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> Voluntary intoxication should not be allowed as a defence


afaik it isn't.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm really hoping that you're *not* projecting past experience onto others. Just because you may have engaged in drunken fucks, doesn't mean that everyone else has, however fervently you assert it.


Go up to newcastle on a friday or saturday night, stand in a taxi queue there at kicking out time say on the bigg market, and pretty much all the blokes in that queue copping off with a woman would be in the process of going for a shag with someone who is at least as pissed as this woman.

now tell me this is a safe and sound interpretation of the law.

ps this is not about my behaviour, this was never my scene, I used to go clubbing for the love of the music and dancing, and avoid those places like the plague, but I spent enough time passing through those places and in those taxi queues to know that the level of intoxication involved here was the same level of lower than for most of the women out in these areas every weekend. The woman in this case even admitted as much in her police interview, saying that she normally drank more than that, or words to that effect.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> semantics, it amounts to the same thing.



No, it doesn't.




free spirit said:


> no, I've not misunderstood, I've outlined it as clearly as I can, and am saying the same thing as you are.



We are not saying the same thing, at all.




free spirit said:


> as of this case she hasn't consented legally, prior to this case she would have been viewed as having consented.



Simply wrong.  There's no reason to believe that, prior to this case, a jury presented with the same evidence would have come to a different conclusion.




free spirit said:


> oh really? Well I've the one who's specifically quoted the previous case law on the subject to back up my point, you're the one who merely asserts that I've got it wrong but refuses to give any specifics.



I've tried to.  But you are incapable of understanding.




free spirit said:


> OK, sorry for the delayed response, but I've just been through all the previous judgements via the R v Malone court of appeal judgement, and confirmed what I thought, that none of them had previously involved a situation where the defendants were both claiming that the woman involved had actually consented, and the woman involved had given no evidence to the contrary, as in this case.



The facts are not the same; the principles are clearly set out, though.  The idea that consent turns on capacity, which can be negated by voluntary intoxication has been recognised well before the Evans case.  You've missed the point.

The fact that two people accused of rape claim the victim consented is hardly surprising.  You seem to assume that the jury accepted that she had indicated a willingness to have sex; there's no way you can know that.




free spirit said:


> All of them in one way or another had the woman saying that she'd not consented, with Malone being about the closest to saying that he thought she had, although only implied consent as opposed to this case where both the male witnesses stated that she had given her verbal consent to having sex with the 2nd guy, and the woman has merely said that she can't actually remember what happened.



What she did or did not say, and her capacity to consent are evidential questions, for a jury, and are peculiar to the circumstances of this case.  But there's nothing about the verdict that is inconsistent with the pre-existing case law.

You seem to be hinting that a not guilty verdict should be returned if there are some words spoken that would ordinarily amount to consent.  But that would be perverse in cases such as this where a jury decides as a matter of fact that, regardless of what might have been said, the defendant had no reasonable belief in consent.




free spirit said:


> And this was the most recent appeal court judgement on the matter prior to this case from R v Bree
> 
> this is also a repeat of the previous R v Malone judges summary.



I would say your selective quoting is a cunt's trick, but I'm beginning to believe that it's more a case of stupidity than disingenuousness.




free spirit said:


> In drink in this case the woman allegedly agreed to have sex with him, and didn't offer any evidence to the contrary in court, and yet he was found guilty on the basis that she was actually judged to have been too drunk to have had the capacity to give her consent.



I really can't tell if you're dishonest or thick.  You repeatedly make this assertion, despite having been told many times that it's not accurate.  He was found guilty not merely because she was too incapable to consent, but also because he had no reasonable belief that she had consented i.e. *he was having sex with someone whilst knowing that she had not consented to have sex with him*.  The jury were convinced of that fact, beyond reasonable doubt, having heard all of the evidence.




free spirit said:


> no, I'm suggesting that if someone is capable of being held criminally responsible for their actions when drunk, then they also ought to be held to be capable of being responsible for their actions when deciding whether or not to agree to have sex with someone.



Whether or not the victim ought to be held responsible is irrelevant; it is the defendant who is on trial.  And, in a case where a jury decides that he did not have have a reasonably held belief that she consented, then, quite rightly, he will be convicted.




free spirit said:


> It looks to have been wrongly applied in this situation to me. The previous court of appeal judgements make broad sense, and I don't have a problem with them. This one seems inconsistent with all of them. The judge seems to have effectively directed the jury that if she was drunk then she couldn't legally give her consent, which is the opposite of the appeal court ruling in Bree.



No, that's not what he directed, at all.  If he had, the appeal would have succeeded.




free spirit said:


> Had the judge merely read that out rather than embellishing it in his own words, then I'd strongly suspect that the jury would have returned a different verdict.



Complete speculation.




free spirit said:


> I also don't think the specific grounds used in his appeal were done well, as they make no reference to the Bree judgement compared to the judges summary. Presumably this is why he's replaced his legal team.



If only he'd had your fine legal mind on board, eh?




free spirit said:


> I think that's me done with this topic for a while, hopefully this has helped to clarify my position on it, and why I've been saying all along that this judgement is at odds with all previous judgements on the subject.



It isn't, at all.




free spirit said:


> If people want to think of me as a rape apologist etc then that's their choice, I've merely been pointing out that in no previous court case would this have been considered as being rape, and that I think this sets a dangerous precedent that really did deserve at the very least to go to the court of appeal as it seems to be at odds with their previous rulings on the subject.



As has been pointed out, you don't understand how precedent works.


I'm glad you're knocking it on the head, because you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Cid (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> Go up to newcastle on a friday or saturday night, stand in a taxi queue there at kicking out time say on the bigg market, and pretty much all the blokes in that queue copping off with a woman would be in the process of going for a shag with someone who is at least as pissed as this woman.



How many of them will be calling their mate in to have a go when they've finished?


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> Go up to newcastle on a friday or saturday night, stand in a taxi queue there at kicking out time say on the bigg market, and pretty much all the blokes in that queue copping off with a woman would be in the process of going for a shag with someone who is at least as pissed as this woman.
> 
> now tell me this is a safe and sound interpretation of the law.
> 
> ps this is not about my behaviour, this was never my scene, I used to go clubbing for the love of the music and dancing, and avoid those places like the plague, but I spent enough time passing through those places and in those taxi queues to know that the level of intoxication involved here was the same level of lower than for most of the women out in these areas every weekend. The woman in this case even admitted as much in her police interview, saying that she normally drank more than that, or words to that effect.



If it was the case that all these blokes fall foul of the law as it stands after Evans, why haven't we seen thousands of prosecutions?  Becasue juries are capable of weighing evidence, to work out what really happened.  And that evidence trumps even your anecdotal observations about Newcastle taxi queues.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> Go up to newcastle on a friday or saturday night, stand in a taxi queue there at kicking out time say on the bigg market, and pretty much all the blokes in that queue copping off with a woman would be in the process of going for a shag with someone who is at least as pissed as this woman.
> 
> now tell me this is a safe and sound interpretation of the law.
> 
> ps this is not about my behaviour, this was never my scene, I used to go clubbing for the love of the music and dancing, and avoid those places like the plague, but I spent enough time passing through those places and in those taxi queues to know that the level of intoxication involved here was the same level of lower than for most of the women out in these areas every weekend. The woman in this case even admitted as much in her police interview, saying that she normally drank more than that, or words to that effect.


Fucking hell. 

There's a difference between 2 drunk people consenting to have sex with each other, and someone having sex with someone passed out drunk. And the difference isn't hard to spot and the line isn't hard to draw. Men incapable of drawing that line are rapists.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

Athos said:


> I would say your selective quoting is a cunt's trick, but I'm beginning to believe that it's more a case of stupidity than disingenuousness.


it's called quoting the salient points, it'd be a bit fucking pointless to quote the entire judgement from start to finish, I provided the link so that you can go through and quote any parts of it you consider refute what I'm saying, as I always have throughout this thread, but you repeatedly seem incapable of doing that.

That's how quoting works, you on the other hand never quote anything, merely give the references and assert what you think they say with an air of false authority. Unless I'm wrong, this isn't your specialist field, so you don't have specific personal expertise to draw on that would entitle you to expect your personal opinion to be given significant weight without any need to actually quote and reference evidence to support your position.



> No, that's not what he directed, at all. If he had, the appeal would have succeeded.


so, what I quoted directly is not what he stated? or do you have a different interpretation of his words?

and the appeal would only have succeeded on those grounds if those were grounds used in the appeal.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Fucking hell.
> 
> There's a difference between 2 drunk people consenting to have sex with each other, and *someone having sex with someone passed out drunk.* And the difference isn't hard to spot and the line isn't hard to draw. Men incapable of drawing that line are rapists.


yes, and that wasn't what happened in this case here either, at least not as far as any of the court reports, or documents I've seen state.

so would you like to try that one again?


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> ... I provided the link so that you can go through and quote any parts of it you consider refute what I'm saying...
> 
> so, what I quoted directly is not what he stated? or do you have a different interpretation of his words?



Well, for instance, your quote from Bree failed to include the sentence immediately before, which says:




			
				Lord Justice Judge said:
			
		

> If, through drink (or for any other reason) the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on the relevant occasion, she is not consenting, and subject to questions about the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse takes place, this would be rape.



And, immediately after the line you quoted out of context:




			
				Lord Justice Judge said:
			
		

> ...consent may evaporate well before  complainant becomes unconscious.






free spirit said:


> Unless I'm wrong, this isn't your specialist field, so you don't have specific personal expertise to draw on that would entitle you to expect your personal opinion to be given significant weight without any need to actually quote and reference evidence to support your position.



You know as little about me as you do about the law.




free spirit said:


> and the appeal would only have succeeded on those grounds if those were grounds used in the appeal.



The appeal would have been put on those grounds, had the judge said that!  But it wasn't; because he didn't.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> yes, and that wasn't what happened in this case here either, at least not as far as any of the court reports, or documents I've seen state.
> 
> so would you like to try that one again?


You want to quibble with the word "passed out"? The jury found that she wasn't in any state to offer consent. If anyone in your anecdotal Newcastle taxi rank is having sex with people unable to consent, then they're rapists.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> You want to quibble with the word "passed out"? The jury found that she wasn't in any state to offer consent. If anyone in your anecdotal Newcastle taxi rank is having sex with people unable to consent, then they're rapists.



Strictly speaking, you should add 'unless they have a reasonable belief that the other person has consented'.  Because it's possible to have sex with someone who hasn't consented, and for it not to amount to rape.  For a conviction, the jury must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that consent had been given.  That's important, because otherwise people could claim that they unwittingly raped someone.  They can't.  Evans didn't.  He knew what he was doing.  He knew then what he is, and he knows now, and, deep down, so must his family.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 19, 2014)

Athos said:


> Strictly speaking, you should add 'unless they have a reasonable belief that the other person has consented'.  Because it's possible to have sex with someone who hasn't consented, and for it not to amount to rape.  For a conviction, the jury must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that consent had been given.  That's important, because otherwise people could claim that they unwittingly raped someone.  They can't.  Evans didn't.  He knew what he was doing.  He knew then what he is, and he knows now, and, deep down, so must his family.


I guess. And I suppose that might be a necessary legal technicality. But in the real world it's impossible to "unwittingly rape someone". You just know, and the pretence that it's possible to do so is a substantial driver of the whole "I could get smeared as a rapist" horseshit.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2014)

Anyway, free spirit, I'm done with your bullshit; I'll try to resist the temptation to respond to ny more of your posts, because there's little point.   You don't understand what you're talking about, and won't be told by people who do.  You're so determined to defend this rapist that you won't listen to reason; you prefer to repeat the same mistakes/lies, as if they'll become true if you say them enough.  It's not really possible to discuss anything with somebody with that mindset.

If it makes you feel better to believe that parliament, the judge, the jury, the appeal court and everyone here got this wrong, and that you alone got it right, then be my guest.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I'll lay odds that you had sex with people who were at least this drunk / off their faces more than once over the years, probably when you were both in a similar state.
> 
> The precedent being set here is that this level of drunkeness removes the woman's legal ability to consent to having sex with you or anybody else, so whether she's begging you for it or not it'd be rape if the police and cps later decide to get involved for whatever reason and decide that in their opinion she was actually too drunk to legally give consent.



i've done some things but i've never gone into a hotel room and had a go on my mate's semi-conscious pull.  i've never done that because that would be a sexual assault.

it seems to me from  reading this thread that you are convinced that she gave explicit consent and then changed her mind after the event.  but this is a different version of events reported by the media covering the trial.  where are you getting your information from?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 19, 2014)

someone mentioned implied consent... as i understand it, there is no such thing as implied consent in legal terms.  if a rape allegation is made, it's up to the defendant to prove that the consent was there and would have been understood as such by most people and that the alleged victim was able to give consent.  i really can't see any issues with this.  evans was unable to convince a jury that any consent was given or that she was able to consent even if she'd announced as such.  this is, i expect, because the law has been worded in such a way that the power imbalance of "implied consent" is balanced out.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 19, 2014)

Athos said:


> Well, for instance, your quote from Bree failed to include the sentence immediately before, which says:
> 
> And, immediately after the line you quoted out of context:


well I wasn't contesting that bit, the judge covered that bit adequately in his summing up, so the bit I quoted was the pertinent bit to the point I was making as it's what was missing from the judges summing up



Athos said:


> You know as little about me as you do about the law.


fair enough, I may have mixed you up with someone else



Athos said:


> The appeal would have been put on those grounds, had the judge said that!  But it wasn't; because he didn't.


again, had he said what? What i quoted him as saying?

here's the full direction (or at least all the direction included in the court of appeal decision to refuse leave to appeal)



> "A complainant consents if, and only if, she has the freedom and capacity to make a choice, and she exercised that choice to agree to sexual intercourse."
> 
> There are two ways in which drink and/or drugs can affect an individual who is intoxicated. First, it can remove inhibitions. A person may do things when intoxicated which she would not do, or be less likely to do if sober. Secondly, she may consume so much alcohol and/or drugs that it affects her state of awareness.
> 
> ...



Actually I was a bit wrong on this the court of appeal does seem to have covered this point, but decided it wasn't important.



> As it seems to us, those directions to the jury amply encapsulated the concept of the drunken consent amounting to consent. The judge did not use those express words; there was no obligation on him to do so.



Now to me, not clearly indicating the point that drunken consent is still actually consent was a pretty major omission in the summing up, given that it was really the point on which the entire trial hinged. Nothing in his summing up really covers this point in the way that the appeal court had described it in Bree, and that's why I've repeatedly referenced this specific line, as it's the salient point that was missing from the judges direction to the jury in this case.



> However where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape.



Had I been in the jury and only seen the judges direction on this, I may well have felt I had to find him guilty if I thought she was drunk, regardless of whether she'd actually given her consent or not. Had I also been given the clear line quoted above, I'd have found him not guilty, as I'd have understood that the law allowed for drunken consent, rather than assuming that drunkeness in itself automatically removed the womans capacity to give her consent.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> Unless I'm wrong, this isn't your specialist field, so you don't have specific personal expertise to draw on that would entitle you to expect your personal opinion to be given significant weight without any need to actually quote and reference evidence to support your position.



For what it's worth, I've researched the Sexual Offences Act 2003 at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels and have been teaching it for the past four years. I'd say that Athos' analysis on this thread has been pretty much spot on. Yours, by contrast, is very confused.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 19, 2014)

free spirit said:


> Had I been in the jury and only seen the judges direction on this, I may well have felt I had to find him guilty if I thought she was drunk, regardless of whether she'd actually given her consent or not. Had I also been given the clear line quoted above, I'd have found him not guilty, as I'd have understood that the law allowed for drunken consent, rather than assuming that drunkeness in itself automatically removed the womans capacity to give her consent.



You what? In what possible world is this statement...



> There are two ways in which drink and/or drugs can affect an individual who is intoxicated. *First, it can remove inhibitions*. A person may do things when intoxicated which she would not do, or be less likely to do if sober. Secondly, she may consume so much alcohol and/or drugs that it affects her state of awareness.
> 
> So you need to reach a conclusion upon what was the complainant's state of intoxication, such as you may find it to be.
> 
> *Was she just disinhibited*, or had what she had taken removed her capacity to exercise a choice?



... not a clear direction that the law allows for drunken consent?


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2014)

Christ. This is starting to look like a sex-crime freeman on the land thread.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 19, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> someone mentioned implied consent... as i understand it, there is no such thing as implied consent in legal terms.  if a rape allegation is made, it's up to the defendant to prove that the consent was there and would have been understood as such by most people and that the alleged victim was able to give consent. .


No, it's not up to the defendant to prove anything. That's a cornerstone - just - of our legal system.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 20, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> i've done some things but i've never gone into a hotel room and had a go on my mate's semi-conscious pull.  i've never done that because that would be a sexual assault.
> 
> it seems to me from  reading this thread that you are convinced that she gave explicit consent and then changed her mind after the event.  but this is a different version of events reported by the media covering the trial.  where are you getting your information from?


the court of appeal documents, and press reports with transcripts of her evidence etc. I've not seen any evidence to state that she was semi concious, and in 15 pages of this bollocks, nobody else has produced that evidence either, though it seems to be a common misconception about what had happened. I've just reread all the BBC reports of the trial from the time as well, and can't see that allegation in there.

This is her statement to the police about how drunk she was that night, from the bbc.


> She told police: "I felt tipsy but not out of control.
> 
> "I usually drink more than that. I haven't blacked out before, not being able to remember anything."



She didn't change her mind, she just couldn't remember what happened at all according to her court statements


> Mr Morgan: "You were happy for this sex to go on weren't you?"
> 
> Woman: "I don't remember."
> 
> When Mr Morgan suggested she agreed to Mr Evans getting involved when he entered the room, she said: "I don't remember."



Out of all the previous cases various posters have cited, this is the only case in which the defendants have both stated that the woman gave her consent, and the woman hasn't actually challenged that in court, merely said that she can't remember to every question on the subject.

It's the police and CPS here who seem to have decided that she was raped due to being too drunk to consent, not her, she just says she can't remember what happened.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 20, 2014)

And that does go back to the burden of proof, tbf. I haven't read everything, but a few posters here have been assuming that she was either unconscious or semi-conscious.

If she had said yes to his joining them, that does leave us with something other than rape. Sleazy as fuck behaviour by these two men, yes. But is it rape if she said ok? This thread's become polarised between those who won't accept that Evans isn't guilty - giving his conviction as proof, which doesn't stand up if you're questioning the conviction - and those who are questioning the verdict.

It's really shitty, bullying behaviour to accuses anyone questioning it of being a rape apologist or worse - as both Athos and Ddraig did - implying that they are rapists themselves. That's really fucking vile behaviour. You should both be fucking ashamed of yourselves for saying that.

And selectively applying the 'jury knows best' attitude is wrong too. Do you also apply that to the clearly absurd jury decision in the Mark Duggan case? Juries get stuff badly wrong sometimes. Hiding behind the system and pretending that it doesn't royally fuck up sometimes is silly.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 20, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> For what it's worth, I've researched the Sexual Offences Act 2003 at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels and have been teaching it for the past four years. I'd say that Athos' analysis on this thread has been pretty much spot on. Yours, by contrast, is very confused.


probably so, it's not my specialist subject, never claimed it was. But just confused, or entirely wrong?

As a specialist in the field, are there many other similar cases to this since Bree (or prior to it), where the defendants have been found guilty on the basis of the womans level of intoxication alone, but not where she was actually passed out or close to it or had been spiked?

Would you agree that this case is a little unusual in that the entire case hinges on how drunk the woman is assessed as being, not on whether she consented, or her statement about what happened etc.

And following this case, how are people supposed to be able to assess if a woman who's wanting to have sex with them is potentially going to be judged to have been too drunk to consent if in the morning she can't actually remember what happened? 

Basically how's the concept that drunken consent is still consent supposed to survive this case? as I really don't get where the line is supposed to be drawn any more.

Bearing in mind that it's entirely possible for someone to be pretty lucid at the time, but still not actually remember it in the morning (and in this field I have a lot of experience both personally and professionally).


----------



## free spirit (Oct 20, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If she had said yes to his joining them, that does leave us with something other than rape. Sleazy as fuck behaviour by these two men, yes. But is it rape if she said ok?


careful now LBJ, the lynch mob will be after you.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 20, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And that does go back to the burden of proof, tbf. I haven't read everything, but a few posters here have been assuming that she was either unconscious or semi-conscious.
> 
> If she had said yes to his joining them, that does leave us with something other than rape. Sleazy as fuck behaviour by these two men, yes. But is it rape if she said ok? This thread's become polarised between those who won't accept that Evans isn't guilty - giving his conviction as proof, which doesn't stand up if you're questioning the conviction - and those who are questioning the verdict.
> 
> ...


Could give a long list of reasons why the Duggan comparison isn't apt, not least the varying likelihood of being believed by a jury if you're a rape victim and if you're a police officer.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 20, 2014)

free spirit said:


> probably so, it's not my specialist subject, never claimed it was. But just confused, or entirely wrong?
> 
> As a specialist in the field, are there many other similar cases to this since Bree (or prior to it), where the defendants have been found guilty on the basis of the womans level of intoxication alone, but not where she was actually passed out or close to it or had been spiked?
> 
> ...


The jury was specifically instructed on exactly that matter. Specifically told that lower inhibitions wasn't enough,  she had to be incapable of making a decision. How on earth is that too low a bar for you?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 20, 2014)

Like, if in doubt, just don't have sex. Having sex or not of an evening is not that important, roll over and go the fuck to sleep. Et voila, no rape trials.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 20, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> For what it's worth, I've researched the Sexual Offences Act 2003 at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels and have been teaching it for the past four years. I'd say that Athos' analysis on this thread has been pretty much spot on. Yours, by contrast, is very confused.



If I may ask you in a different way, do you agree that the guidance, and now this case law, on the subject of the difference between drunken consent, and being judged as being too drunk to have the capacity to consent is pretty much a confusing minefield in which anyone who ends up 'pulling' a woman while out on the piss could end up stepping on a mine without realising it?

The CPS guidance


> In _R v Bree_ [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. Further, they identified that capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, depends on the facts of the case.
> 
> In cases similar to _Bree,_ prosecutors should carefully consider whether the complainant has the capacity to consent, and ensure that the instructed advocate presents the Crown's case on this basis and, if necessary, reminds the trial judge of the need to assist the jury with the meaning of capacity.
> 
> Prosecutors and investigators should consider whether supporting evidence is available to demonstrate that the complainant was so intoxicated that he/she had lost their capacity to consent. For example, evidence from friends, taxi drivers and forensic physicians describing the complainant's intoxicated state may support the prosecution case. In addition, it may be possible to obtain expert evidence in respect of the effects of alcohol/drugs and the effects if they are taken together. Consideration should be given to obtaining an expert's back calculation or the opinion of an expert in human pharmacology in relation to the complainant's level of alcohol/ drugs at the time of the incident.



so if someone is drunk then they can consent, but if they're drunk to the point where the police / CPS might consider that they're too drunk to consent then it could be a rape charge even if the woman did consent, but nobody will actually put their necks on the line and define what too drunk to consent means so cases such as this happen. It looks as clear as mud to me.

If this case is to set that bar at what is too drunk to consent (which I'm assuming it must at least to some degree, in the absence of other clear definitions of what is and isn't too drunk), then it's setting it at a bloody low level given the amount that a lot of women drink when out on the town at weekends (ie binge drinking). She'd certainly not drunk an unusual amount by that score, though maybe she had drunk it a bit quicker than normal.

For reference, she's listed as having drunk 2 glasses of wine after work around 11pm, then gone home to shower, then gone back out and drunk 4 double vodka and mixers (IIRC), and even she'd said to the police that this wasn't as much as she usually drank. That's something like 13 units in total, but her body would have got rid of maybe 4 of those in the 5 hours since she started drinking, so effectively she had about 9 units inside her at the time this all happened, which really is pretty low down the scale of inebriated states women (and men) regularly get into when on a pissed up night on the town... although she had drunk the last 8 units pretty fast.

I just don't understand how they've decided in this specific case that she's too drunk for her consent to count, when she's not really any more drunk / probably less drunk than a good percentage of people who go out on the piss every weekend at the end of the night. And I've seen far more than my fair share of pissed up people at the end of the night to know what I'm talking about on that.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 20, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> Like, if in doubt, just don't have sex. Having sex or not of an evening is not that important, roll over and go the fuck to sleep. Et voila, no rape trials.


so 2 consenting adults, both pissed decide they want to have sex, but actually can't due to possibly being too drunk to make that decision, so should simply turn over and go to sleep instead in case it turns out they were both actually too drunk to consent so are both actually now rapists, or maybe one was slightly more drunk than the other, so they're now the victim and the other one is the rapist.

what sort of a puritanical world are we geting into here? no sex when drunk just in case.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 20, 2014)

from what i understand (just from reading this thread) she never made a rape complaint - she made an inquiry after a missing handbag. she has expressed no opinion either way on whether or not she was raped/did or did not consent, she has only said she doesn't remember. no-one seems to have actually disputed this.

no-one on this thread has accused the woman of lying - as she's said nothing either way. no-one has even taken Ched's testimony as truth. free spirit has been repeatedly arguing that he/she has taken issue with the fact that this case has legally ruled out the importance of whether or not the woman consented - de facto - by placing the decision to prosecute entirely in the hands of a next-morning police assessment that she had been unable to consent due to her drunkenness - regardless of her opinion on the matter. the issue is now, that a verdict of rape can be granted without a complaint from the victim whatsoever, totally on the basis of the potentially prudish judgement of the 'legal classes' of judges and policemen and what they consider to be acceptable levels of drunkenness.

would like to concur with littlebabyjesus that in the context of this discussion the conduct of some (the majority) on this thread has been hysterical and frankly disgusting.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 20, 2014)

Doesn't the fact that one guy was acquitted show that the courts didn't just consider the woman's state at the time, but also the men's, and that the person who picked her up in a fairly usual way was let off means the chances of someone pulling on a Friday night getting done under this law is vanishingly small (even in the context of how small the chances are of someone being done for rape in any circumstances)?
I've not read anything except this thread since the case but it seems like the men's mindset is as important here and that the jury judged Evans should have known she wasn't in a state to consent but did it anyway. His actions seem very different to me to someone on the pull in a club and it's his actions, not hers, that make it rape.


----------



## Batboy (Oct 20, 2014)

Das Uberdog said:


> from what i understand (just from reading this thread) she never made a rape complaint - she made an inquiry after a missing handbag. she has expressed no opinion either way on whether or not she was raped/did or did not consent, she has only said she doesn't remember. no-one seems to have actually disputed this.
> 
> no-one on this thread has accused the woman of lying - as she's said nothing either way. no-one has even taken Ched's testimony as truth. free spirit has been repeatedly arguing that he/she has taken issue with the fact that this case has legally ruled out the importance of whether or not the woman consented - de facto - by placing the decision to prosecute entirely in the hands of a next-morning police assessment that she had been unable to consent due to her drunkenness - regardless of her opinion on the matter. the issue is now, that a verdict of rape can be granted without a complaint from the victim whatsoever, totally on the basis of the potentially prudish judgement of the 'legal classes' of judges and policemen and what they consider to be acceptable levels of drunkenness.
> 
> would like to concur with littlebabyjesus that in the context of this discussion the conduct of some (the majority) on this thread has been hysterical and frankly disgusting.



If you read through what you've said above and cross reference with the fact 1) Evans admitted having sex 2) Evans lied in saying the girl wasn't drunk when clearly from CCTV he was. 3) The girl has consistently said she doesn't remember what happened thus reaffirming the fact she was drunk and therefore oblivious to any way of consenting or knowing what was going, you then can see the police got it right to make the decision themselves to bring charges and for the CPS to prosecute.

I think they got it right in Evans case. I'm just surprised the other guy got off.

I can see some grey areas in what you are saying and no doubt there will be some dubious cases, but equallyEvans conviction was correct and if nothing else it might make some idiot people think twice in pursuing sex with someone who is comatose especially egoistical stupidly rich footballers.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 20, 2014)

Falling into bed with someone you Picked up and having drunk sex one thing.
 Seeing your mate finish and decide 2nd ups for a laugh is completely different especially if said women is in no state to consent.

The 1st one you could argue she consented. In chedd case unless your living in porno world  does just not fucking happen.


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2014)

Das Uberdog said:


> from what i understand (just from reading this thread) .


Read something else before commenting you brain dead dickhead.


----------



## mentalchik (Oct 20, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Falling into bed with someone you Picked up and having drunk sex one thing.
> Seeing your mate finish and decide 2nd ups for a laugh is completely different especially if said women is in no state to consent.



This is the whole crux of it imo !


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 20, 2014)

free spirit said:


> If I may ask you in a different way, do you agree that the guidance, and now this case law, on the subject of the difference between drunken consent, and being judged as being too drunk to have the capacity to consent is pretty much a confusing minefield in which anyone who ends up 'pulling' a woman while out on the piss could end up stepping on a mine without realising it?
> 
> The CPS guidance
> 
> ...


Your assumption that the quantity of alcohol the woman reports having drunk is of anything more than marginal relevance is flawed here. Firstly, because not all human bodies metabolise alcohol at the same rate. Secondly, because it's a very easy thing to misreport. Thirdly, because for all we know her story that she was spiked could be true.

There is no indication that the jury evaluated her state by totting up units of alcohol. They had CCTV footage and eyewitness statements from which to do so. They were also specifically directed not to convict if they thought the woman was simply disinhibited (ie. Drunkenly consented). It simply isnt the case that the decision they made was that drunk consent doesn't count.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 20, 2014)

free spirit said:


> so 2 consenting adults, both pissed decide they want to have sex, but actually can't due to possibly being too drunk to make that decision, so should simply turn over and go to sleep instead in case it turns out they were both actually too drunk to consent so are both actually now rapists, or maybe one was slightly more drunk than the other, so they're now the victim and the other one is the rapist.
> 
> what sort of a puritanical world are we geting into here? no sex when drunk just in case.


No. I'm saying that whenever consent may be in doubt or consent may not be possible, men should refrain from sex. This is not a hard thing to guage.


----------



## ddraig (Oct 20, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And that does go back to the burden of proof, tbf. I haven't read everything, but a few posters here have been assuming that she was either unconscious or semi-conscious.
> 
> If she had said yes to his joining them, that does leave us with something other than rape. Sleazy as fuck behaviour by these two men, yes. But is it rape if she said ok? This thread's become polarised between those who won't accept that Evans isn't guilty - giving his conviction as proof, which doesn't stand up if you're questioning the conviction - and those who are questioning the verdict.
> 
> ...


nowhere have i done this!!
please retract right now
well out of order and very disingenuous


----------



## killer b (Oct 20, 2014)

You did ask a fucking snide question insinuating it tbf ddraig. You're the one being disingenuous.


----------



## ddraig (Oct 20, 2014)

killer b said:


> You did ask a fucking snide question insinuating it tbf ddraig. You're the one being disingenuous.


no i asked if he felt he had wrongly been accused, a bit different no boss?

e2a and completely different to implying that someone is a rapist


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2014)

free spirit said:


> so 2 consenting adults, both pissed decide they want to have sex, but actually can't due to possibly being too drunk to make that decision, so should simply turn over and go to sleep instead in case it turns out they were both actually too drunk to consent so are both actually now rapists, or maybe one was slightly more drunk than the other, so they're now the victim and the other one is the rapist.
> 
> what sort of a puritanical world are we geting into here? no sex when drunk just in case.


you really are a fucking moron. The very fact that you can make yourself write 'so are both actually now rapists' shows you are deliberately) failing to understand the hole concept of rape.  You have consistently been (again, deliberately) confusing the separate cases of McDonald and Evans and have been consistently ignoring the utterly key fact that the jury found that Evans lied about the state of the victim. This means that any claims he makes about the victim consenting should be ignored, as he is proven to be a liar. And if there is no question of informed consent being given, you are guilty of rape.


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> no i asked if he felt he had wrongly been accused, a bit different no boss?
> 
> e2a and completely different to implying that someone is a rapist


bollocks.  Free spirit is a grade a shit, and an apologist shit at that, but you were well out of order


----------



## ddraig (Oct 20, 2014)

I did not accuse/imply him of being a rapist as lbj has claimed, fact


----------



## killer b (Oct 20, 2014)

Don't come all innocent with us ddraig. Its your standard MO.


----------



## ddraig (Oct 20, 2014)

killer b said:


> Don't come all innocent with us ddraig. Its your standard MO.


i know you don't like me but please don't try and twist this to have a pop
i did not imply what lbj has posted and it is well out of order


----------



## killer b (Oct 20, 2014)

Give over, its nothing to do with whether I like you or not. Don't be so fucking precious. You asked a snide insinuating question, lbj was right to pull you up on it.


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> I did not accuse/imply him of being a rapist as lbj has claimed, fact


yes you did



ddraig said:


> wondered if you consider yourself to have been 'wrongly accused' in the past fs?


----------



## ddraig (Oct 20, 2014)

killer b said:


> Give over, its nothing to do with whether I like you or not. Don't be so fucking precious. You asked a snide insinuating question, lbj was right to pull you up on it.


i did not whatsoever imply what lbj is saying and you are backing him up on and i feel it is dangerous to suggest so.
in work so don't have time to answer all this, what a load of shit, left this fucked up thread ages ago and only responded to that.


----------



## ddraig (Oct 20, 2014)

belboid said:


> yes you did


how does that imply that? seriously
if i'd thought that i'd have said it


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> how does that imply that? seriously
> if i'd thought that i'd have said it


because that is that, you disingenuos twat.  you are trying to play the same game as free spirit, trying to hide between mealy mouthed statements and crap wordplay.  and you are just as bad as him at it.

When did you stop beating your wife?


----------



## ddraig (Oct 20, 2014)

belboid said:


> fuck off you disingenuos twat.  you are trying to play the same game as free spirit, trying to hide between mealy mouthed statements and crap wordplay.  and you are just as bad as him at it.
> 
> When did you stop beating your wife?


well out of order, how dare you compare me to him

off this thread, well done


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2014)

ddraig said:


> well out of order, how dare you compare me to him
> 
> off this thread, well done


coward and liar


----------



## ddraig (Oct 20, 2014)

i am neither
have fun on the thread, just the mens left now
great work


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2014)

what does asking (only asking, ohh yes guv) [do] 'you consider yourself to have been 'wrongly accused' in the past?' to mean then?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 20, 2014)

belboid said:


> Read something else before commenting you brain dead dickhead.



you are a total cunt - anything i say there not correct? i invited correction numerous times if i'd got the wrong end of the stick.



Batboy said:


> If you read through what you've said above and cross reference with the fact 1) Evans admitted having sex 2) Evans lied in saying the girl wasn't drunk when clearly from CCTV he was. 3) The girl has consistently said she doesn't remember what happened thus reaffirming the fact she was drunk and therefore oblivious to any way of consenting or knowing what was going, you then can see the police got it right to make the decision themselves to bring charges and for the CPS to prosecute.
> 
> I think they got it right in Evans case. I'm just surprised the other guy got off.
> 
> I can see some grey areas in what you are saying and no doubt there will be some dubious cases, but equallyEvans conviction was correct and if nothing else it might make some idiot people think twice in pursuing sex with someone who is comatose especially egoistical stupidly rich footballers.



i don't have a particular opinion on the Evans case i just don't think free spirit should be being roasted in this way when imo there's clearly a discussion here to be had. i am not whatsoever convinced that it can _ever_ be good for police to be able to pursue rape complaints without the participation of the person alleged to have been attacked, regardless of the perceived circumstance. sexual assault is a particular and not easily generalised event, subjective experiences from those involved are particularly important in ascertaining the nature of what went on and in their absence do we trust the plod and judiciary to fill in the gaps?


----------



## bmd (Oct 20, 2014)

free spirit said:


> If this case is to set that bar at what is too drunk to consent (which I'm assuming it must at least to some degree, in the absence of other clear definitions of what is and isn't too drunk), then it's setting it at a bloody low level given the amount that a lot of women drink when out on the town at weekends (ie binge drinking). She'd certainly not drunk an unusual amount by that score, though maybe she had drunk it a bit quicker than normal.



This case decided that she was drunk and unable to consent. Another woman may drink double this and go through the same process and be judged, by the jury, as not being too drunk to consent. 

You're making out that it's a units thing. It isn't, it's about capacity to consent.


----------



## bmd (Oct 20, 2014)

Das Uberdog said:


> i don't have a particular opinion on the Evans case i just don't think free spirit should be being roasted in this way when imo there's clearly a discussion here to be had. i am not whatsoever convinced that it can _ever_ be good for police to be able to pursue rape complaints without the participation of the person alleged to have been attacked, regardless of the perceived circumstance. sexual assault is a particular and not easily generalised event, subjective experiences from those involved are particularly important in ascertaining the nature of what went on and in their absence do we trust the plod and judiciary to fill in the gaps?



The police will pursue domestic abuse cases without the victim's consent too. I'm sure there are plenty of other crimes like this.

eta: prosecution is as much about protecting the public from harm as it is about justice for the victim.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 20, 2014)

i would be interested to see if there were any case law examples of successful prosecutions for domestic abuse without the testimony of the person being abused - genuinely, i have no idea and my presumption would have been it would be extremely difficult/nigh on impossible to attain a full conviction without the participation of the victim


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2014)

Das Uberdog said:


> you are a total cunt - anything i say there not correct? i invited correction numerous times if i'd got the wrong end of the stick.


try thinking - then you might be able to work out why FS has been acting like a complete piece of shit, and an utterly dishonest one at that.


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2014)

Das Uberdog said:


> i would be interested to see if there were any case law examples of successful prosecutions for domestic abuse without the testimony of the person being abused - genuinely, i have no idea and my presumption would have been it would be extremely difficult/nigh on impossible to attain a full conviction without the participation of the victim


try looking for half a second then, you'll fnd shitloads.
http://www.nelsonslaw.co.uk/site/ne...asescouldstillbeprosecutedwithoutvictims.html


----------



## bmd (Oct 20, 2014)

Das Uberdog said:


> i would be interested to see if there were any case law examples of successful prosecutions for domestic abuse without the testimony of the person being abused - genuinely, i have no idea and my presumption would have been it would be extremely difficult/nigh on impossible to attain a full conviction without the participation of the victim



Yep, there are plenty since the law was changed a couple of years ago. Of course the victim has to make an initial complaint but even if they withdraw it the prosecution goes forward.

If your mum or sister was raped by a man who the police could have prosecuted but didn't because it wasn't the primary wish of a previous victim, what would you think of that?


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 20, 2014)

bmd said:


> Yep, there are plenty since the law was changed a couple of years ago. Of course the victim has to make an initial complaint but even if they withdraw it the prosecution goes forward.
> 
> If your mum or sister was raped by a man who the police could have prosecuted but didn't because it wasn't the primary wish of a previous victim, what would you think of that?



obviously if someone i knew and cared about was attacked by anyone in any circumstance i'd be sick to the stomach and would want all kinds of things to happen. i never think these what ifs particularly help discussions like these.

i still think there's a problem here in that the woman seems to have never, at any point, placed a complaint against Ched Evans for anything other than having lost track of her handbag. instinctively i dislike a legal precedent which gives the entire initiative of prosecution for something like rape in the hands of the police. who is to say someone has been sexually abused, other than the person in question? and if they genuinely appear to have no opinion either way (not even placing an accusation then withdrawing it) i find it difficult to see where the motivation to prosecute comes from.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 20, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> It's going to be something to the tune of Do do do do, Dah dah dah dah by the Police, isn't it?



Mine was to: "she'll be wearing pink pyjamas when she comes..."


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2014)

Das Uberdog said:


> i still think there's a problem here in that the woman seems to have never, at any point, placed a complaint against Ched Evans for anything other than having lost track of her handbag. instinctively i dislike a legal precedent which gives the entire initiative of prosecution for something like rape in the hands of the police. who is to say someone has been sexually abused, other than the person in question? and if they genuinely appear to have no opinion either way (not even placing an accusation then withdrawing it) i find it difficult to see where the motivation to prosecute comes from.


as repeatedly pointed out before, there is NO precedent here. There was a significant amount of supporting evidence from the various scenes, including the lies of Ched Evans. 

Following your line of thinking, it would be impossible to charge someone with the rape of a person who was unconscious if no marks were left.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 20, 2014)

belboid said:


> as repeatedly pointed out before, there is NO precedent here. There was a significant amount of supporting evidence from the various scenes, including the lies of Ched Evans.
> 
> Following your line of thinking, it would be impossible to charge someone with the rape of a person who was unconscious if no marks were left.



whether or not the precedent is in this particular case i don't like the precedent.

the scenario of an unconscious person is more definitive than this case imo, but yes if there is no complainant (i.e. the victim never puts forward an accusation of rape) then i don't think it's a particularly good thing for the police to be able to decide what's happened on their behalf. personally i think it's quite important for sexual abuse cases to be navigated by the subjective experience of those implicated... the actual distress of a victim of sexual assault should be a necessary part of understanding - from a legal perspective - if anything untoward has occurred. i'm less solid in the case of someone who is actually passed out mind you, but that doesn't appear to have been the case here anyway.


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2014)

Das Uberdog said:


> whether or not the precedent is in this particular case i don't like the precedent.


in which case it isn't the supposed precedent you dont like, its the law.



> the scenario of an unconscious person is more definitive than this case imo, but yes if there is no complainant (i.e. the victim never puts forward an accusation of rape) then i don't think it's a particularly good thing for the police to be able to decide what's happened on their behalf. personally i think it's quite important for sexual abuse cases to be navigated by the subjective experience of those implicated... the actual distress of a victim of sexual assault should be a necessary part of understanding - from a legal perspective - if anything untoward has occurred. i'm less solid in the case of someone who is actually passed out mind you, but that doesn't appear to have been the case here anyway.


so if someone is too out of it to know what happened, anything can be done to them?  wow.  you do realise how dodgy that is, dont you?


----------



## bmd (Oct 20, 2014)

Das Uberdog said:


> obviously if someone i knew and cared about was attacked by anyone in any circumstance i'd be sick to the stomach and would want all kinds of things to happen. i never think these what ifs particularly help discussions like these.
> 
> i still think there's a problem here in that the woman seems to have never, at any point, placed a complaint against Ched Evans for anything other than having lost track of her handbag. instinctively i dislike a legal precedent which gives the entire initiative of prosecution for something like rape in the hands of the police. who is to say someone has been sexually abused, other than the person in question? and if they genuinely appear to have no opinion either way (not even placing an accusation then withdrawing it) i find it difficult to see where the motivation to prosecute comes from.



Yeah, you're right. I was trying to underline the point that the Police's motivation to prosecute is also about protecting the public. 

Anyway, it's not in the hands of the Police, it's in the hands of the CPS. We then get into whether we trust the judicial process.


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2014)

bmd said:


> We then get into whether we trust the judicial process.


I doubt there are many here that do trust the judicial process, but because it is overwhelmingly biased _against _rapists and abusers being successfully prosecuted (as we can see re the Rotherham cases at the moment), we shouldn't be doing anything to make things easier for them. In the -very few - cases where prosecutions are taken forward without the victims explicit complaint, it is because the evidence is already very strong indeed - as it is in this case.


----------



## bmd (Oct 20, 2014)

belboid said:


> I doubt there are many here that do trust the judicial process, but because it is overwhelmingly biased _against _rapists and abusers being successfully prosecuted (as we can see re the Rotherham cases at the moment), we shouldn't be doing anything to make things easier for them. In the -very few - cases where prosecutions are taken forward without the victims explicit complaint, it is because the evidence is already very strong indeed - as it is in this case.



This is why I'm arguing so strongly in this case: sexual crimes are woefully prosecuted. There's no way that this case would have won on anything other than very strong and clear evidence. What worries me about the people who are against it is that they are undermining a system that's already heavily weighted against the victims. The power is already with the defendant.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 20, 2014)

belboid said:


> in which case it isn't the supposed precedent you dont like, its the law.
> 
> 
> so if someone is too out of it to know what happened, anything can be done to them?  wow.  you do realise how dodgy that is, dont you?



you don't see how dodgy it is that these complaints can be pursued without the testimony, support or involvement of the person who has been attacked? no, not anything can be done to them but i do think that in ascertaining whether or not a sexual assault has occurred it is vitally important to consider whether or not anybody feels that they have been violated.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 20, 2014)

free spirit said:


> Go up to newcastle on a friday or saturday night, stand in a taxi queue there at kicking out time say on the bigg market, and pretty much all the blokes in that queue copping off with a woman would be in the process of going for a shag with someone who is at least as pissed as this woman.
> 
> now tell me this is a safe and sound interpretation of the law.
> 
> ps this is not about my behaviour, this was never my scene, I used to go clubbing for the love of the music and dancing, and avoid those places like the plague, but I spent enough time passing through those places and in those taxi queues to know that the level of intoxication involved here was the same level of lower than for most of the women out in these areas every weekend. The woman in this case even admitted as much in her police interview, saying that she normally drank more than that, or words to that effect.



Fuck me, no equivalence.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 20, 2014)

Cid said:


> How many of them will be calling their mate in to have a go when they've finished?



Quite.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 20, 2014)

Athos said:


> You know as little about me as you do about the law.



He thinks you're Diamond , who's the (supposed) "expert" in EU law that he's mistaking you for.


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2014)

Das Uberdog said:


> you don't see how dodgy it is that these complaints can be pursued without the testimony, support or involvement of the person who has been attacked? no, not anything can be done to them but i do think that in ascertaining whether or not a sexual assault has occurred it is vitally important to consider whether or not anybody feels that they have been violated.


the testimony and involvement of the person attacked WILL be included.  I can see why it sounds a bit off, but it is far far better than abusers being able to get away with abuse. Even more so with domestic violence, when the reason for not wanting to cooperate is usually the fear of the reprisal. 

In this case, and in others involving date rape drugs (not that we know whether this case did involve such a drug) the victim DOES feel violated, they are just unclear how.  It is a deeply disturbing and very scary experience. Anyone in such a circumstance will be hoping that its found that they weren't (or were very unlikely to have been) raped, but they need to know what happened.  And a charge of rape will then only be brought if the evidence is very strong - as it was in this case.


----------



## bmd (Oct 20, 2014)

Das Uberdog said:


> you don't see how dodgy it is that these complaints can be pursued without the testimony, support or involvement of the person who has been attacked? no, not anything can be done to them but i do think that in ascertaining whether or not a sexual assault has occurred it is vitally important to consider whether or not anybody feels that they have been violated.



The thing is, it sounds like you're saying that this prosecution sprung from thin air. It didn't, did it. The Police don't go around inventing sexual crimes to investigate.


----------



## marty21 (Oct 20, 2014)

Das Uberdog said:


> you don't see how dodgy it is that these complaints can be pursued without the testimony, support or involvement of the person who has been attacked? no, not anything can be done to them but i do think that in ascertaining whether or not a sexual assault has occurred it is vitally important to consider whether or not anybody feels that they have been violated.


 not dissimilar to Domestic Violence - I know of cases through my work, where the Police have pursued the case even though the victim hasn't co-operated with them - 'tell me wife/partner of violent man, why don't you want to co-operate with us ?'


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 20, 2014)

Athos said:


> Anyway, free spirit, I'm done with your bullshit; I'll try to resist the temptation to respond to ny more of your posts, because there's little point.   You don't understand what you're talking about, and won't be told by people who do.  You're so determined to defend this rapist that you won't listen to reason; you prefer to repeat the same mistakes/lies, as if they'll become true if you say them enough.  It's not really possible to discuss anything with somebody with that mindset.
> 
> If it makes you feel better to believe that parliament, the judge, the jury, the appeal court and everyone here got this wrong, and that you alone got it right, then be my guest.



What do you know? You're only a lawyer who deals with some of this sort of shit!!!
Fucking experts, giving it all that...


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 20, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, it's not up to the defendant to prove anything. That's a cornerstone - just - of our legal system.



I was paraphrasing but here's the law:

Rape

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

---

It specifically relies on the demonstration of the defendant to show that they have taken steps to ascertain consent.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1

e2a the link.  so that you can see that i'm not lying.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 20, 2014)

free spirit said:


> It's the police and CPS here who seem to have decided that she was raped due to being too drunk to consent, not her, she just says she can't remember what happened.



if she can't remember what happened, and is telling the truth, don't you think that that pretty much shows that she wasn't in a condition to give informed consent?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 20, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> For what it's worth, I've researched the Sexual Offences Act 2003 at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels and have been teaching it for the past four years. I'd say that Athos' analysis on this thread has been pretty much spot on. Yours, by contrast, is very confused.



Probably because Athos isn't trying to construct an argument about how the law is incorrect.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 20, 2014)

In a way, FS raises important general issues about the potential criminalisation of 'normal drunken (consensual) sex' - though I don't think the law actually does that.   Trouble is he's profoundly wrong to suggest this case is about that or even close to it.  As well as the generally high bar in terms of getting a rape prosecution, it seems to me the prosecution faced a difficult job disentangling when her consent 'ran out' (from the first bloke) and then what state she was in with regard to being pissed.  The thing is though, piecing all the evidence together, they *did do that* - the jury, seeing all the cctv, hearing the details, came to a clear conclusion.  Yes, of course, juries get things wrong but I'm struggling to see any legal errors in this.  And perhaps more importantly, from a real world judgement of his behaviour, it's 100% clear the situation was set up to allow evans to have sex with her when she was at her most vulnerable.  Both legally and morally he's gulity as fuck.

Anything about this being equivalent to the 'normal' sexual politics and consensual encounters of a Friday night out, is just plain wrong.


----------



## killer b (Oct 20, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> if she can't remember what happened, and is telling the truth, don't you think that that pretty much shows that she wasn't in a condition to give informed consent?


 I think this is the crux of FS's argument - that people do things when they're drunk which they can't remember after (get into fights, have sex with people, etc etc) which doesn't necessarily mean they were unable to consent / were not responsible for those things happening. However, he's only really concentrating on one part of the evidence for some reason, as if that's all the jury made their decision on.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 20, 2014)

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/b...top-ched-evans-from-getting-his-old-job-back/
Spiked getting in on the act.


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2014)

Wilf said:


> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/b...top-ched-evans-from-getting-his-old-job-back/
> Spiked getting in on the act.


phew, now I know I'm on the right side of the argument


----------



## bmd (Oct 20, 2014)

Wilf said:


> In a way, FS raises important general issues about the potential criminalisation of 'normal drunken (consensual) sex



What criminal issues are there around normal drunken consensual sex?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 20, 2014)

bmd said:


> What criminal issues are there around normal drunken consensual sex?


None - that's why I said 'though I don't think the law actually does that'.  I was just agreeing there's a sort of _theoretical_ discussion that could be had about the status of consent between partners of differing levels of sobriety throughout an evening.  However, I shoud have been clearer, I *don't* think that's the way to look at sexual politics or what actually happens in a sexual attack. It's decontextualised and ignores the power dynamic.  It's also clearly not a useful way to think about this case in particular - and it's a line of argument that would (wrongly) strengthen the defence.

Edit: I was also pissed off by free spirit's references to 'puritanism'.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 20, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Edit: I was also pissed off by free spirit's references to 'puritanism'.


 
cmon, that's fair at least.  only a joyless fanatic wouldn't shag a burd who was so drunk she'd pissed herself and didn't know way was up. 

----
i wonder if there is a fighting fund to support the victim.  she's already had to move and change her name to escape all the threats but  Evans' partner has hired a PI to track her down and her new name has already been leaked to the internet.  the message from society is pretty clear - if you're a victim of rape no-one gives a fuck.  liberal lefties will wring their hands and talk about burden of proof, pretend that you weren't raped in a way that meets their terms of rape.  tories will shrug because you were probably drunk and a slag and anyway the bloke in question makes plenty of money so it's more important that he gets out there and earns some more money to pay some more tax.  it's a fucking load of shit.  neckshots all round.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 20, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> Evans' partner has hired a PI to track her down




wtaf


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> Evans' partner has hired a PI to track her down


Jesus H.... I hope the shitbag gets sent down for that


----------



## trashpony (Oct 20, 2014)

And this is exactly why prosecution should take place, even if the victim has withdrawn charges. Without that, being able to use intimidation as a tactic to harass victims would be even more popular.  

With his current behaviour, I hope Evans' licence is revoked and the shit gets sent back down for his the full term.


----------



## killer b (Oct 20, 2014)

Is that PI thing real? Where's that from? Surely that's massively criminal...


----------



## Manter (Oct 20, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> wtaf


^ this


----------



## Manter (Oct 20, 2014)

Why has the miscarriage of justice review thing been accelerated? I heard it had been, but not even an attempt to justify it


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 20, 2014)

killer b said:


> Is that PI thing real? Where's that from? Surely that's massively criminal...




would it be if she's left the country and local PI's hired?


----------



## killer b (Oct 20, 2014)

I have no idea, but either way it's probably not something you'd admit to doing. Considering the amount of bullshit flying around this case it's made my eyebrow shoot up tbh.


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2014)

killer b said:


> Is that PI thing real? Where's that from? Surely that's massively criminal...


various reports mention his legal team hiring a PI - paid for by her father (eg http://www.theguardian.com/society/...-rape-resume-football-career-sheffield-united)  One would hgave to assume that they are behind the leaking of the video thats on his defense site, and it would seem the most obvious source for the victims new name - altho it would be incredibly stupid, as it would surely lead to loss of license (at least) if it could be traced back to him


----------



## killer b (Oct 20, 2014)

Think its possibly best to avoid assumptions of such significance tbh.


----------



## Athos (Oct 20, 2014)

free spirit said:


> well I wasn't contesting that bit, the judge covered that bit adequately in his summing up, so the bit I quoted was the pertinent bit to the point I was making as it's what was missing from the judges summing up
> 
> 
> fair enough, I may have mixed you up with someone else
> ...



I'm really going to regret engaging with this, again.  But, here goes...

It seems that your ever-shifting position has now alighted on the notion that the reason the outcome of this case was unsatisfactory is not because it means the court went beyond what parliament intended, or for any of the other spurious reasons you raised previously, but because, in your view, the judge's direction to the jury in this case was inconsistent with the direction given in Bree.  And, as far as I can gather, your concern is that, in future, judges will adopt a wording similar to that in the Evans case, which, in your view, 'lowers the bar'.

Before I respond to that, does that accurately reflect your position?


----------



## Athos (Oct 20, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's really shitty, bullying behaviour to accuses anyone questioning it of being a rape apologist or worse - as both Athos and Ddraig did - implying that they are rapists themselves.



I didn't mean to imply that, and don't believe I did.  I said I was suspicious of his motives for casting around for some legal basis upon which to defend this rapist; I am - I think they're borne of a profound misogyny.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 21, 2014)

Athos said:


> I'm really going to regret engaging with this, again.  But, here goes...
> 
> It seems that your ever-shifting position has now alighted on the notion that the reason the outcome of this case was unsatisfactory is not because it means the court went beyond what parliament intended, or for any of the other spurious reasons you raised previously, but because, in your view, the judge's direction to the jury in this case was inconsistent with the direction given in Bree.  And, as far as I can gather, your concern is that, in future, judges will adopt a wording similar to that in the Evans case, which, in your view, 'lowers the bar'.
> 
> Before I respond to that, does that accurately reflect your position?


my core issue has remained the same from start to finish, this case seems to have lowered the bar at which drunken consent turns into rape compared to previous cases.

Beyond that I've then investigated the specifics of the case, and previous case law mainly due to being pushed into doing that by you in order to justify that position. Obviously during 2 days of investigating the specifics of the law, and previous cases under heavy attack, my understanding of the precise details of the situation and previous judgements etc changed a little, but I've not found anything, or been shown anything that changes my initial view of this that this case has dramatically changed the situation over what constitutes drunken consent vs someone not having the capacity to consent due to being drunk.

IMO this conviction was in large part based on the false assumption that because someone has a complete blank in their memory, then they automatically must have been too drunk to consent, and that it must also have been obvious that they were too drunk to consent.

This completely misunderstands how people can behave during periods of alcoholic blackout, and misses the point that she actually lost her memory at some point around the takeaway, where she spent an hour, but can barely remember any of it, then managed to get in the front of a taxi herself, walk into the hotel herself etc all while in the same alcoholic blackout state she was in when she can't remember if she consented to have sex with either guy or not.



> En bloc memory impairments tend to have a distinct onset. It is usually less clear when these blackouts end because people typically fall asleep before they are over. Interestingly, people appear able to keep information active in short–term memory for at least a few seconds. As a result, they can often carry on conversations, drive automobiles, and engage in other complicated behaviors. Information pertaining to these events is simply not transferred into long–term storage


 [source]
I've djed an entire 2 hour set while in almost complete alcoholic blackout, woken up the next day to complain about my tunes being all over the place to be asked if I didn't remember playing for a good 2 hours - djing takes a considerable degree of co-ordination, so I'm just giving that as an example of what I've personally done while in alcoholic blackout. It's about memory formation, not necessarily how co-ordinated or lucid someone might be / appear to be.

This quote illustrates why this is important, and why I've been saying all along that this judgement is dangerous, unsound law that potentially criminalises the regular drunken but consensual night time activities of fuckloads of young people (and not so young).


> *Fifty–one percent of the students who had ever consumed alcohol reported blacking out at some point in their lives,* and 40 percent reported experiencing a blackout in the year before the survey. Of those who had consumed alcohol during the 2 weeks before the survey, 9.4 percent reported blacking out during this period. *Students in the study reported that they later learned that they had participated in a wide range of events they did not remember*, including such significant activities as vandalism, *unprotected intercourse*, driving an automobile, and spending money.



Reading the appeal court judgement, and the dismissal of the attempt by the defence to basically introduce this point at appeal via an expert witness saying the same thing, it's pretty clear that the defence in the original trial fucked this right up by attempting to state that the woman must have been lying and hadn't drunk enough to have got full memory blackout as she claims. That was bollocks, she'd drunk 8 shots of vodka in the space of 90 minutes, on top of 2 big glasses of wine earlier, which is easily enough in that short space of time to induce alcoholic blackout (note, this isn't different to my previous position, to me someone ending up in alcoholic blackout isn't particularly unusual for that type of night out, what I was disputing was that this was enough to make her obviously too drunk to consent).

The court of appeal judges refused leave to appeal on these grounds on the basis that this hadn't formed part of the direction of the judge to the jury, but that doesn't in any way mean that the jury didn't make their own judgements about what the implications were of her being too drunk to remember what happened, and the defence hadn't made the point to them that being in alcoholic blackout doesn't necessarily mean that someone can't still appear relatively coherent.

Unless people have experienced this situation themselves, they're probably not going to appreciate this distinction, and I can't see any way that this didn't inform the jury's decision making, probably made worse by the defence trying to paint her as a lier and effectively leaving the impression that if she wasn't lying then she was blacked out and by implication must have been incapable, otherwise why would the defence have not properly challenged it on that basis. At least that's how I'd have interpreted it if the defence had taken that line, and not challenged the notion that blackout doesn't necessarily equal obvious incoherence.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2014)

Not sure you're sober enough to post that confused arrogant coked up someone elses money late night trash. 

Or maybe you are.

Why don't you give him a job?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 21, 2014)

Wilf said:


> In a way, FS raises important general issues about the potential criminalisation of 'normal drunken (consensual) sex' - though I don't think the law actually does that.   Trouble is he's profoundly wrong to suggest this case is about that or even close to it.


how does one tell whether a woman who appears fairly pissed, but still relatively coherent is actually in a state of alcoholic blackout and won't be able to recall if she'd consented or not in the morning?

I will acknowledge that the fact that the court of appeal refused leave to appeal on these grounds, because the judge himself hadn't mentioned this point in his summing up might mean that this case is more of a one off, and not necessarily precedent setting on this point, but it's taken a close reading of that judgement to work that out.



Wilf said:


> As well as the generally high bar in terms of getting a rape prosecution, it seems to me the prosecution faced a difficult job disentangling when her consent 'ran out' (from the first bloke) and then what state she was in with regard to being pissed.  The thing is though, piecing all the evidence together, they *did do that* - the jury, seeing all the cctv, hearing the details, came to a clear conclusion.  Yes, of course, juries get things wrong but I'm struggling to see any legal errors in this.


What cctv evidence was there of her state of drunkeness between the point that she consented to sex with the first person, and apparently was incapable of consenting to sex with the 2nd?



Wilf said:


> And perhaps more importantly, from a real world judgement of his behaviour, it's 100% clear the situation was set up to allow evans to have sex with her when she was at her most vulnerable.  Both legally and morally he's gulity as fuck.


It's not 100% clear that this was the case at all, and to imply that is pretty libelous tbh against the other guy involved who you just accused of setting this situation up to allow his mate to rape this girl. 

For a situation to have been set up like that it was pretty fucked up, given that he'd got split up from the first guy due to a mate getting into a fight and being nicked, and him going to the police station to try to get him out, then turned up at the hotel with his brother and a mate in tow (according to him, because they wanted to tell the other guy about their mate being nicked, though that bit is obviously impossible to verify)

That's a pretty elaborate set up just to end up having sex with a girl, when the guy could easily have just pulled a girl himself at any point that night if that was the aim of the night - successful footballers not being renowned for finding it hard to attract female attention on a night out.



Wilf said:


> Anything about this being equivalent to the 'normal' sexual politics and consensual encounters of a Friday night out, is just plain wrong.


people keep referring to this normal drunken sexual encounters.

Would this normal sex preclude say drunken 3somes, orgies..... the normality of the sex is not a matter for the court to decide, the only issue for the court to decide is whether or not it was consensual. 

Here they ruled it was not consensual due to her being deemed to be too drunk to consent, and the accused knowing that she was too drunk to consent.

That's something that could potentially apply to any other drunken sexual situation that the police got involved in for whatever reason, given that the nature of the sexual encounter isn't a matter for the court to decide on, only the issue of consent.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Not sure you're sober enough to post that confused arrogant coked up someone elses money late night trash.
> 
> Or maybe you are.
> 
> Why don't you give him a job?


oh joy, butchers enters the thread with accusations of me being drunk and coked up on someone elses money.

you thought the bar of insults just hadn't been set low enough, so you'd best come in and really hit me where you think it might hurt eh.

fwiw, it must be at least 6 months since I last had any coke, and have barely done any for years, and even then it wasn't really my drug of choice, and if I'm not sober after 2 weeks without a drink, then my liver really must be fucked.

as for someone elses money.... I mostly tend to buy my own drinks thanks.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 21, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Edit: I was also pissed off by free spirit's references to 'puritanism'.





el-ahrairah said:


> cmon, that's fair at least.  only a joyless fanatic wouldn't shag a burd who was so drunk she'd pissed herself and didn't know way was up.



I thought it was pretty obvious that it was a facetious response to this bollocks that Lo Siento had posted as a general policy not specifically about this case, the clue being that I quoted the post in my response.



Lo Siento. said:


> Like, if in doubt, just don't have sex. Having sex or not of an evening is not that important, roll over and go the fuck to sleep. Et voila, no rape trials.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 21, 2014)

free spirit said:


> oh joy, butchers enters the thread with accusations of me being drunk and coked up on someone elses money.
> 
> you thought the bar of insults just hadn't been set low enough, so you'd best come in and really hit me where you think it might hurt eh.
> 
> ...



Tbh you are happy enough to throw insults around...you implied I was so stupid you could draw it in crayons so I would understand so dont act the victim.

You draw up weird ideas about precedent thrown up by this case, claiming a the police could prosecute a pissed bloke for having a one night stand. Yet Evans didnt claim to be pissed. If I am wrong then why are you trusting anything he says?

You claim the law is wrong implying all men having consensual sex after they and the other person have been drinking face being charged with rape by the police without a shred of proof.

You imply he has been set up ... someone supporting your view mentioned mark duggan as an example of the police setting someone up and the jury making a wrong verdict due to misinformation and lies by the police. Mark Duggan had been shot dead in the street and a riot broke out which sparked off other riots. The police had a lot to lie about in order to protect themselves. That is the case in all the injustice cases and simply does not apply in this case.

You have made all sorts of inuendos against the woman ... claiming she werent that drunk (cos you watched some cctv) so presumerably you believe she lied when she says she had no memory of events.

You conveniently ignore his lies...glossing over them as though they have no baring on the case.

That is why people are judging you...your views and ideas about this case are horrible. And by the way your coke and drinking habits....seriously...you need to put them on a public forum to justify yourself? On this thread? Do you not consider how that looks?


----------



## Athos (Oct 21, 2014)

free spirit said:


> ...  my initial view of this that this case has dramatically changed the situation over what constitutes drunken consent vs someone not having the capacity to consent due to being drunk.



No it hasn't.  The distinction between drunkenness and incapacity was made clear in the judge's direction.  This was one of the issues considered by the appeal court; they were satisfied that the judge's direction was entirely consistent with Bree.  The law after this case remains the same as the law before it: drunk people can consent, but people who are so drunk as to lack capacity cannot.




free spirit said:


> IMO this conviction was in large part based on the false assumption that because someone has a complete blank in their memory, then they automatically must have been too drunk to consent, and that it must also have been obvious that they were too drunk to consent.



How can you have any idea what formed the basis of the jurors conclusion that she lacked the capacity to consent?  They heard lots of evidence.  You have no grounds to assert that their decision was based on a false assumption.




free spirit said:


> This quote illustrates why this is important, and why I've been saying all along that this judgement is dangerous, unsound law that potentially criminalises the regular drunken but consensual night time activities of fuckloads of young people (and not so young).



No it doesn't, because the law remains the same.  The sort of people who continue to be criminalised are those who sneak into a bedroom to have sex with a girl who is so drunk that their friend has to tell the night porter to keep an eye on them, before sneaking out the back door.  The sort of people who, as in this case, a jury find had no reasonable belief that their victim had consented to have sex with him.  When two drunk (but not incapable) people fall into bed together and start to have sex, then, absent some other dodgy circumstances, there's no reason to suspect that they don't each believe the other consents to sex.  That's why they're not being prosecuted.




free spirit said:


> Reading the appeal court judgement, and the dismissal of the attempt by the defence to basically introduce this point at appeal via an expert witness saying the same thing, it's pretty clear that the defence in the original trial fucked this right up by attempting to state that the woman must have been lying and hadn't drunk enough to have got full memory blackout as she claims. That was bollocks, she'd drunk 8 shots of vodka in the space of 90 minutes, on top of 2 big glasses of wine earlier, which is easily enough in that short space of time to induce alcoholic blackout (note, this isn't different to my previous position, to me someone ending up in alcoholic blackout isn't particularly unusual for that type of night out, what I was disputing was that this was enough to make her obviously too drunk to consent).
> 
> The court of appeal judges refused leave to appeal on these grounds on the basis that this hadn't formed part of the direction of the judge to the jury, but that doesn't in any way mean that the jury didn't make their own judgements about what the implications were of her being too drunk to remember what happened, and the defence hadn't made the point to them that being in alcoholic blackout doesn't necessarily mean that someone can't still appear relatively coherent.
> 
> Unless people have experienced this situation themselves, they're probably not going to appreciate this distinction, and I can't see any way that this didn't inform the jury's decision making, probably made worse by the defence trying to paint her as a lier and effectively leaving the impression that if she wasn't lying then she was blacked out and by implication must have been incapable, otherwise why would the defence have not properly challenged it on that basis. At least that's how I'd have interpreted it if the defence had taken that line, and not challenged the notion Thethat blackout doesn't necessarily equal obvious incoherence.



Juries make judgements based on their own experiences, and upon the evidence.  If there is evidence of what you are saying about the effects of alcohol on memory, then the defence ought to have adduced that at the time.  But, tactically, they opted for a different approach.  In any event, in future cases with similar circumstances, it will remain a option for the defence to adduce such expert evidence.


So, given that: i. (as the Court of Appeal found) the judge's direction was consistent with Bree, such that the law around drunkenness and consent remains the same; ii. it remains an option for the defence in similar cases to adduce evidence as the the effects of alcohol on memory; and, iii. juries' verdicts do not make precedent, then there is no way in which this case can be considered to have 'lowered the bar' of what amounts to rape.  Your central point is wrong.

This is borne out by the fact that, in the two and a half years since the prosecution we've not seen thousands of people criminalised for their run-of-the-mill drunken sex.  To suggest that this would be the effect of the verdict in this case is nothing more than the oft-repeated misogynists' fear of tide of false allegations.

I know you've come in for a lot of stick on this thread, and I expect that has made you defensive, but it's really time for you to just admit you got it wrong - this case doesn't lower the bar, at all.  If you want to say that you think the defence team didn't handle the case as well as they could have, or even that you think the jury got their assessment of the evidence wrong, then fine (although I happen to disagree with you), but please don't continue to assert that this case represents a change in the law.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 21, 2014)

Scratch a lib dem,

What's your opinion of Rennard then FS?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 21, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I thought it was pretty obvious that it was a facetious response to this bollocks that Lo Siento had posted as a general policy not specifically about this case, the clue being that I quoted the post in my response.



I don't think repeating my quote and your pretty rank response to it does your argument the favour you think it does. "I have a doubt whether this person is capable of consent, but I'm going to press ahead with sex regardless" is not a good look.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Scratch a lib dem,
> 
> What's your opinion of Rennard then FS?



He probably thinks he's a fox.


----------



## toggle (Oct 21, 2014)

free spirit said:


> That's a pretty elaborate set up just to end up having sex with a girl, when the guy could easily have just pulled a girl himself at any point that night if that was the aim of the night - successful footballers not being renowned for finding it hard to attract female attention on a night out.



and are you actually trying to suggest that men who are attractive enough to pull don't commit rape?


----------



## belboid (Oct 21, 2014)

toggle said:


> and are you actually trying to suggest that men who are attractive enough to pull don't commit rape?


I think FS is trying to demonstrate that he knows nothing about men, women, rape, as well as the law (and the meaning of precedent)


----------



## toggle (Oct 21, 2014)

belboid said:


> I think FS is trying to demonstrate that he knows nothing about men, women, rape, as well as the law (and the meaning of precedent)



he's nrepeating a particular idea is an unfortunately common rape myth. based on the idea (which i'm oversimplifying at this point) that all men who rape do so because they are an ugly bloke with no social skills and its the only way they can get sex. while some rapists fit that stereotype, there are others who appear to have everything and rape because they feel they are entitled to whatever they want. 

http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/06/25/darren-sharper

I've just skimmed though that link and it seems to cover some of this in a different case relatively well. a successful attractive man, accused of drugging and raping multiple women, with a history of entitled behavior.


----------



## belboid (Oct 21, 2014)

toggle said:


> he's nrepeating a particular idea is an unfortunately common rape myth. based on the idea (which i'm oversimplifying at this point) that all men who rape do so because they are an ugly bloke with no social skills and its the only way they can get sex. while some rapists fit that stereotype, there are others who appear to have everything and rape because they feel they are entitled to whatever they want.
> 
> http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/06/25/darren-sharper
> 
> I've just skimmed though that link and it seems to cover some of this in a different case relatively well. a successful attractive man, accused of drugging and raping multiple women, with a history of entitled behavior.


Oh yes. he is completely ignoring/ignorant of the fact that there are a whole subset of sexual predators whose modus operandi is precisely this kind of sexual exploitation - finding a drunk girl, on her own, stumbling out of a club, and following/giving a lift to them until they are all nice and alone.  At which point....


----------



## toggle (Oct 21, 2014)

belboid said:


> Oh yes. he is completely ignoring/ignorant of the fact that there are a whole subset of sexual predators whose modus operandi is precisely this kind of sexual exploitation - finding a drunk girl, on her own, stumbling out of a club, and following/giving a lift to them until they are all nice and alone.  At which point....



i have discussed before, that this isn't an uncommon situation in 'aquaintance rape'. the freind/colleague who takes the drunk woman home at the end of a night either to get access to her, or believes his 'protection' of her entitles him to her body.


----------



## belboid (Oct 21, 2014)

toggle said:


> i have discussed before, that this isn't an uncommon situation in 'aquaintance rape'. the freind/colleague who takes the drunk woman home at the end of a night either to get access to her, or believes his 'protection' of her entitles him to her body.


see also, Comrade Delta


----------



## articul8 (Oct 21, 2014)

I can only surmise that the evidence in this case was strong enough to persuade a jury that there was no question of her being in a position to give consent.  Must have been pretty powerful to overcome the defence arguments.  In which case, he deserves what he got - and shouldn't be applauded back as a returning hero.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 21, 2014)

Seems old bill are now investigating Evans' website as it didn't have permission to use the video of Evans' victim from police, CPS or hotel.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 21, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I have real problems with the law that's being used in this case, and always have done since it was framed a decade or so ago.
> 
> Under UK law, anyone who gets blind drunk voluntarily is still held to be legally responsible for any actions they take while blind drunk, from driving a car to getting involved in a drunken fight to vandalism to murder etc. being blind drunk is not a defence against any charges.
> 
> ...



I was wondering where you got this bit of guff from - the Ched Evans site - and you've added the reference in because it wasn't bloody there originally. You're seriously quoting that as a reputable source of information? 

It's also not bloody true - which I think you've since realised because you've quoted the appeal transcript extensively. Pretty grim that you haven't retracted it


----------



## Glitter (Oct 21, 2014)

free spirit the stuff you are saying here is utterly fucking despicable. You are a nasty rape apologist cunt if you even believe a tiny bit of what you say.

In what way is a grubby nasty rapist turning up to penetrate a semi conscious woman in a hotel room whilst his friends film it even comparable to two pissed up people going home together?

Just fuck off.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 21, 2014)

Been spending a long time catching up with this thread (in detail) over the past two or three days. So I'm very much not _only_ responding to the post immediately above mine, here.

However :



Glitter said:


> In what way is a grubby nasty rapist turning up to penetrate a semi conscious woman in a hotel room whilst his friends film it even comparable to two pissed up people going home together?



free spirit -- I've no doubt you won't want to reply to the above question from Glitter because of her swearing at you, but I can see her central point tbh.

So I've edited her post because I really don't understand why you've spent so little (if any?) time focussing on *THAT* aspect of Ched Evans' behaviour. As plenty of posters have said earlier, it's about Evans rolling in later on** to help himself that's important, not exactly how drunk or not the victim was. Pehaps the jury were focussing on how Ched Evans actuually behaved? Pehaps HIS behaviour is why they found him guilty?

**at his mate's invitation FFS -- well fucking disgraceful in itself


----------



## Glitter (Oct 21, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Been spending a long time catching up with this thread (in detail) over the past two or three days. So I'm very much not _only_ responding to the post immediately above mine, here.
> 
> However :
> 
> ...



I'm not sure I need editing, thank you very much. 

The reason he hasn't spent any time on that part is because it weakens his position as a rape apologist cunt. I thought that was quite obvious.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 21, 2014)

Glitter said:


> I'm not sure I need editing, thank you very much.
> 
> The reason he hasn't spent any time on that part is because it weakens his position as a rape apologist cunt. I thought that was quite obvious.




Apologies if I annoyed you. I edited your post in the hope of getting fs to respond to it (he'll most likely just object to the abuse and ignore the rest, otherwise).

I think your central question is key to the whole thread. I'm pretty much at one with you (and others) about it really.


----------



## Glitter (Oct 21, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> I edited your post in the hope of getting fs to respond to it (he'll most likely just moan about the abuse and ignore the rest, otherwise).
> 
> I think your central question is central to the whole thread. I'm pretty much at one with you (and others) about it really.



He's had it put to him several times and ignored it. Presumably for the reasons I detailed above. Of course it's central to the whole case. But he doesn't care about that because it stops him from being able to spread his misogynistic shite as it's completely unarguable. 

I get why you did it but it really pissed me off. I know you probably didn't mean to patronise me but you did.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 21, 2014)

Glitter said:


> I get why you did it but it really pissed me off. I know you probably didn't mean to patronise me but you did.



Again, apologies. Its *exactly *because it weakens his case so much that I wanted to focus on your central question. No intention at all of patronising you.


----------



## Glitter (Oct 21, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Again, apologies. Its exactly because it weakens his case that I wanted to focus on your central question.



Accepted. 

It's been mentioned about 20 times prior to me doing it so 22 including you. I bet it's mentioned at least that again before there's a response.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 22, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> So I've edited her post because I really don't understand why you've spent so little (if any?) time focussing on *THAT* aspect of Ched Evans' behaviour. As plenty of posters have said earlier, it's about Evans rolling in later on** to help himself that's important, not exactly how drunk or not the victim was. Pehaps the jury were focussing on how Ched Evans actuually behaved? Pehaps HIS behaviour is why they found him guilty?
> 
> **at his mate's invitation FFS -- well fucking disgraceful in itself


because william, you're pushing your own morality onto the situation, and the law should never intervene in what happens in the bedroom between 2 or more consenting adults.

Which is why this case was nominally about whether or not she was too drunk to legally consent, and whether or not this should have been obvious to the accused, although in reality it was pretty obviously brought because the coppers themselves applied that same level of morality to the situation, which is why this case ended up in court whereas many other situations where drunk people have ended up fucking each other then one or other of them had no recollection of how that had happened in the morning haven't.

I also think it's interesting to note that most posters who've posted similar queries on here have done so while embellishing what we actually know about how drunk she was, with stuff like 'passed out' 'pissed herself' 'semi-concious' 'incapable of saying no'.

How come people actually have to make stuff up about how drunk they assume she must have been, when there's zero evidence to support it? Could it be that if they accepted that she wasn't / might well not have actually been passed out / semi conscious etc then they know they might have to revise their opinion of the situation, or are actually assuming that this must be what happened because otherwise he wouldn't have been found guilty?

Both of the people in the room who could actually remember what had happened had testified that she was awake, positively agreed to the idea of Ched joining in, and was very much an active participant in everything that happened - and the hotel porter's testimony also backs up the idea that she was at least a conscious and active participant in the sex, as he went to listen outside the door to check the situation.

The reason I've got involved in this thread in this way is because after investigating the actual situation, I realised that all these stories of her actually being passed out etc that kept being repeated were unsupported bollocks, then realised that essentially he'd been convicted because she'd been in alcoholic blackout and couldn't remember a thing about it, which the police, CPS and jury had taken to mean she must have been completely and obviously incapable of giving her consent.

That's absolutely not my experience at all of people who've ended up in alcoholic blackout by downing that level of spirits in a short space of time, where I know that people can appear pretty coherent, able to hold conversations, able to walk, dance, even DJ, and if anything could be comparable with someone on a manic phase of bipolar as they can really be the life and soul of the party, loosing their inhibitions in the process, but not in a way that it'd be entirely obvious to anyone that they were actually in alcoholic blackout and wouldn't remember a thing about it in the morning.

And i have a lot of experience of that late night world to draw on to know what people are capable of, and how they appear when in alcoholic blackout.

So I find their version of events to at least be plausible, it's supported by the CCTV footage, the way she'd drunk her alcohol, the fact that the blackout period started at some point in the takeaway long before she'd met either of them, and after which she managed to order and wait for a pizza, get into a taxi, walk into the hotel unaided etc. So why must she have instantly passed out as soon as she got into the bedroom just because she also can't remember that bit?

I didn't really understand why or how he'd been convicted on this basis until I read the appeal court documents, and realised that his defence had fucked it up and had an expert witness who instead of ensuring the jury understood how alcoholic blackout worked, that it effect memory formation, but not necessarily the apparent coherence of the person at the time, had instead tried to make out that she'd not drunk enough to have entered that state, and must be lying, which was an utterly shit and wrong approach to have taken both for the girl to be accused of lying, and because it condemned the guy to being found guilty because he wasted the opportunity to actually ensure the jury understood how coherent people under alcoholic blackout can appear.

So here was a situation where a girl could well have been a willing and active participant in sex at the time (no evidence offered to the contrary, supporting evidence from the night porter), but where the person who she was having sex with was later found guilty of rape because she'd been in alcoholic blackout and can't remember what happened, and a jury determined that she must have been obviously too drunk to have been able to truly give her consent without her giving any evidence at all about what happened, so the only support for the rape charge was how drunk the jury decided she must have been. 

If you think this sounds like good law, then fair enough, but I don't.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 22, 2014)

Why are you reading the appeal court documents? Why are you valuing them over the actual trial records? which you have have and have gone through right?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 22, 2014)

You literally have read the defences side and presented it as fact.


----------



## xenon (Oct 22, 2014)

Still digging. You're smearing this case with all sorts of your own presumptions. The 2 people that could remember etc, -  Taken as ghospel. No evidence, - You weren't in the court. Because you've worked in the night time economy, this is how it happens etc. 

Bit fucking rich to talk about peple pushing their own morality on to the situation. Because you have interpreted the situation in a particular way, to raise some nonsence but what if, what if. Thus anyone seeing different is somehow Mary fucking Whitehouse.


----------



## xenon (Oct 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You literally have read the defences side and presented it as fact.



Sasinctly put


----------



## toggle (Oct 22, 2014)

free spirit said:


> because william, you're pushing your own morality onto the situation, and the law should never intervene in what happens in the bedroom between 2 or more consenting adults.



no, it shouldn't. but this is not about 2 or more _consenting_ adults, is it.


----------



## Cid (Oct 22, 2014)

toggle said:


> no, it shouldn't. but this is not about 2 or more _consenting_ adults, is it.



But Ched and his mate say that she said yes. That's the same as consent isn't it?


----------



## toggle (Oct 22, 2014)

Cid said:


> But Ched and his mate say that she said yes. That's the same as consent isn't it?



oh fuck

i forgot we're supposed to always believe blokes when they say 'she wanted it'


----------



## killer b (Oct 22, 2014)

Christ, I've just been having a poke around ched evans's website. Its absolutely vile. The idea that she didn't make a complaint and both parties are innocent victims of the law out of control seems to be absent there, where the victim is repeatedly characterised as a gold digging slut. How you can side with these fucking vermin is beyond me fs.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 22, 2014)

Athos said:


> If there is evidence of what you are saying about the effects of alcohol on memory, then the defence ought to have adduced that at the time.  But, tactically, they opted for a different approach.


So we agree on that at least.

Had they actually introduced that evidence/ expert witness testimony to the jury, chances are we wouldn't be having this conversation IMO. 

And there's no question of whether there is evidence of what I'm saying on alcoholic blackout, it's established science, and referenced by mulitple papers and alcohol awareness websites etc. never mind my real world experience of it.



> So, given that: i. (as the Court of Appeal found) the judge's direction was consistent with Bree, such that the law around drunkenness and consent remains the same; ii. it remains an option for the defence in similar cases to adduce evidence as the the effects of alcohol on memory; and, iii. juries' verdicts do not make precedent, then there is no way in which this case can be considered to have 'lowered the bar' of what amounts to rape.  Your central point is wrong.



You may be right, I was assuming that because the appeal court had refused leave to appeal that this would set more of a precedent, but having read it in a bit more detail it does look more like a case of the legal team mounting a shit defence, and the appeal courts more rejecting the defence's attempt to change their approach to it on appeal / not considering it central due to the judge not using it in his summing up etc



Athos said:


> This is borne out by the fact that, in the two and a half years since the prosecution we've not seen thousands of people criminalised for their run-of-the-mill drunken sex.  To suggest that this would be the effect of the verdict in this case is nothing more than the oft-repeated misogynists' fear of tide of false allegations.


well, I was saying that it could potentially result in any of those cases ending up in court, not that it would result in all of them ending up in court. ie that it would create a lottery on who was able to have drunken consensual one night stands, and who ended up having a one night stand with someone who later turned out to have been in alcoholic blackout, and ended up with the police involved for whatever reason and using this high profile case as their guide to whether to take action or not.



Athos said:


> I know you've come in for a lot of stick on this thread, and I expect that has made you defensive, but it's really time for you to just admit you got it wrong - this case doesn't lower the bar, at all.  If you want to say that you think the defence team didn't handle the case as well as they could have, or even that you think the jury got their assessment of the evidence wrong, then fine (although I happen to disagree with you), but please don't continue to assert that this case represents a change in the law.


The bar was lowered in this case, I can't see how that can really be questioned. I will accept though that this may or may not actually impact on future cases, time will tell on that I suppose.


----------



## Cid (Oct 22, 2014)

free spirit said:


> because william, you're pushing your own morality onto the situation, and the law should never intervene in what happens in the bedroom between 2 or more consenting adults.
> 
> Which is why this case was nominally about whether or not she was too drunk to legally consent, and whether or not this should have been obvious to the accused, although in reality it was pretty obviously brought because the coppers themselves applied that same level of morality to the situation, which is why this case ended up in court whereas many other situations where drunk people have ended up fucking each other then one or other of them had no recollection of how that had happened in the morning haven't.
> 
> ...



So you aren't arguing that this case sets new precedents any more? Just that you think the jury was wrong?


----------



## Cid (Oct 22, 2014)

free spirit said:


> well, I was saying that it could potentially result in any of those cases ending up in court, not that it would result in all of them ending up in court. ie that it would create a lottery on who was able to have drunken consensual one night stands, and who ended up having a one night stand with someone who later turned out to have been in alcoholic blackout, and ended up with the police involved for whatever reason and using this high profile case as their guide to whether to take action or not.



So what would you suggest the police do when someone comes to them having woken up in a strange hotel room naked with no memory of the previous night?




> The bar was lowered in this case, I can't see how that can really be questioned. I will accept though that this may or may not actually impact on future cases, time will tell on that I suppose.



As Athos pointed out time has told.


----------



## toggle (Oct 22, 2014)

Cid said:


> So what would you suggest the police do when someone comes to them having woken up in a strange hotel room naked with no memory of the previous night?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i'm guessing you believe the men who had sex with her that she wanted it. cause men with looks/money don't do rape.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2014)

free spirit said:


> The bar was lowered in this case, I can't see how that can really be questioned.


Mabe because you have provided abso;lutely no evidence to back up your assertion.  None of the documents you cite do so. You have (deliberately) misunderstood and misrepresented them.  As said above, you have presented one side of the case and accepted it as fact.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2014)

toggle said:


> i'm guessing you believe the men who had sex with her that she wanted it. cause men with looks/money don't do rape.


Didn't you know?  There's no need for them to!  There are so many drunk women around late at night who are happy to shag owt.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 22, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> Tbh you are happy enough to throw insults around...you implied I was so stupid you could draw it in crayons so I would understand so dont act the victim.


The cap seemed to fit.



comrade spurski said:


> You draw up weird ideas about precedent thrown up by this case, claiming a the police could prosecute a pissed bloke for having a one night stand. Yet Evans didnt claim to be pissed. If I am wrong then why are you trusting anything he says?
> 
> You claim the law is wrong implying all men having consensual sex after they and the other person have been drinking face being charged with rape by the police without a shred of proof.


potentially. I didn't expect that everyone involved in drunken sex would suddenly find themselves locked up, just that they were more vulnerable to it if this was how the law was to be applied more widely.

I've no idea how pissed or otherwise Evans was or claims to have been, but I doubt he was entirely sober either after a night out on the town with his mates.



comrade spurski said:


> You imply he has been set up ...


bollocks, never said this, never implied it.



comrade spurski said:


> You have made all sorts of inuendos against the woman ... claiming she werent that drunk (cos you watched some cctv) so presumerably you believe she lied when she says she had no memory of events.


you mean other than the bits where I've specifically said that I don't think she lied, and the amount that she had drunk in that space of time was IMO sufficient to induce alcoholic blackout?



comrade spurski said:


> You conveniently ignore his lies...glossing over them as though they have no baring on the case.


people keep referring to these lies, but I've not seen anyone actually state what they're supposed to be, so yes I'll ignore it until someone gives some specifics.



comrade spurski said:


> And by the way your coke and drinking habits....seriously...you need to put them on a public forum to justify yourself? On this thread? Do you not consider how that looks?


I don't actually give a fuck how it looks. This is or was Urban 75 not fucking mumsnet last time I looked.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 22, 2014)

belboid said:


> Mabe because you have provided abso;lutely no evidence to back up your assertion.  None of the documents you cite do so. You have (deliberately) misunderstood and misrepresented them.  As said above, you have presented one side of the case and accepted it as fact.


other than checking and citing the previous case law referenced, I'm not sure how much more evidence you'd like me to produce.

the links are all there, go check it out for yourself if you don't believe me.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Why are you reading the appeal court documents? Why are you valuing them over the actual trial records? which you have have and have gone through right?


because I can't find the fucking trial records, and I could find the court of appeal records.

What I have had from the original trial was from various press reports, not the full transcript.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 22, 2014)

Cid said:


> So you aren't arguing that this case sets new precedents any more? Just that you think the jury was wrong?


It may or may not, time will tell on that.

It sets the bar lower than in previous cases, whether other cases then follow that lead or not I can't know, maybe future cases will have a better defence team.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 22, 2014)

toggle said:


> i'm guessing you believe the men who had sex with her that she wanted it. cause men with looks/money don't do rape.


guess again.


----------



## toggle (Oct 22, 2014)

free spirit said:


> . This is or was Urban 75 not fucking mumsnet last time I looked.



of course, mumsnet is the only place where repeating bullshit rape myths is considered unacceptable.


----------



## toggle (Oct 22, 2014)

free spirit said:


> guess again.



that was your fucking claim, why don't yuou excplain what you were trying to say.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2014)

free spirit said:


> other than checking and citing the previous case law referenced, I'm not sure how much more evidence you'd like me to produce.
> 
> the links are all there, go check it out for yourself if you don't believe me.


I have.  They dont support you.  You are the only person on this thread who believes they do.  Clearly nothing will change your mind.  Which is very sad.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 22, 2014)

toggle said:


> i'm guessing you believe the men who had sex with her that she wanted it. cause men with looks/money don't do rape.


If you're talking about a court case and wondering whether or not to lock those men up, that's the wrong question, isn't it? The question in terms of 'beyond reasonable doubt' surely has to be 'is there reason to disbelieve them?' You don't have to believe them, merely to have no reason not to believe them.

Many court cases do come down to the believability of various opposing stories (which is a problem in itself, on a much wider point - we're not great judges of such things and are easily fooled (even just the time of day (morning/afternoon, after lunch or just before leaving) influences our receptability to testimony), but this one, it appears, didn't. There is no attested opposing story, is there?

On the narrow point about semi-consciousness, fs makes a good point that an alcohol-induced inability to lay down long-term memories does not necessarily mean you appear semi-conscious. I'm sure many of us can attest first-hand to that. 

This is a sorry case all round. I feel very sorry for the woman involved, who's suffered a great deal through no fault of her own. She can't even remember, and as far as I know has never claimed otherwise. Poor sod.


----------



## killer b (Oct 22, 2014)

Jesus.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> Jesus.


I share some of fs's unease about the case. Apparently that means being a rape-apologist cunt on here.


----------



## toggle (Oct 22, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If you're talking about a court case and wondering whether or not to lock those men up, that's the wrong question, isn't it?




what you quoted is a reference to free spirit saying;



> the guy could easily have just pulled a girl himself at any point that night if that was the aim of the night - successful footballers not being renowned for finding it hard to attract female attention on a night out.



which looks a lot like him claiming that men who can attract female attention never commit rape because they don't need to.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 22, 2014)

toggle said:


> no, it shouldn't. but this is not about 2 or more _consenting_ adults, is it.


My point was that whether the guy had just arrived and asked or been offered to get involved in a 2some, orgy, bondage, seconds etc. or had been with her all night, or was her long term boyfriend should be irrelevant to the actual issue of consent.

Consensual isn't rape in any of those situations, non-consensual is rape in all of those situations.


----------



## Cid (Oct 22, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I share some of fs's unease about the case. Apparently that means being a rape-apologist cunt on here.



Have you read the whole thread?


----------



## toggle (Oct 22, 2014)

free spirit said:


> My point was that whether the guy had just arrived and asked or been offered to get involved in a 2some, orgy, bondage, seconds etc. or had been with her all night, or was her long term boyfriend should be irrelevant to the actual issue of consent.
> 
> Consensual isn't rape in any of those situations, non-consensual is rape in all of those situations.



and a court decided that evans did not have reasonable grounds to believe she consented.


----------



## Cid (Oct 22, 2014)

To be precise the jury decided that the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that evidence adduced by the defence did not show a reasonable belief in consent.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 22, 2014)

toggle said:


> which looks a lot like him claiming that men who can attract female attention never commit rape because they don't need to.


no, I was saying it seemed pretty unlikely that they'd actually gone to that much effort to deliberately set it up so that he could end up raping a random passed out drunk girl, as that was what was being asserted.

eta and if they had done that, then it had all happened pretty randomly.


----------



## toggle (Oct 22, 2014)

free spirit said:


> no, I was saying it seemed pretty unlikely that they'd actually gone to that much effort to deliberately set it up so that he could end up raping a random passed out drunk girl, as that was what was being asserted.



when did anyone claim the whole situation was a deliberate setup so they could commit rape?

and yes it is still an assertion that men who have access to sex don't need to rape.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 22, 2014)

i still find it exhausting that so many folks here continue to misrepresent almost everything fs posts - presumably deliberately...

that is without delving whatsoever into the specifics of the case. i'm by no means convinced that Evans wasn't convicted justly - but so far as i can see the bulk of fs's posts have been reasonable and argued sincerely. doesn't appear to warrant all these perennial accusations that he is accusing the victim of lying, that he's claiming attractive men don't commit rape, that he's being misogynistic... etc etc etc. quite apart from the quite insidious inferences to him earlier.

even being  right in an argument about a case like this shouldn't give licence to this piranha mob mentality, where it's generally tolerated that fs will be subject to a bombardment of vague distortions and crude elaborations of his position whilst literally every single word he types is picked over with a fine-toothed comb. on top of the wild aspersions and aggressive denunciations.

ffs why can't we have a conversation people.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 22, 2014)

belboid said:


> I have.  They dont support you.  You are the only person on this thread who believes they do.  Clearly nothing will change your mind.  Which is very sad.


so the fact this is the only one of them where both defendants actually claimed she'd specifically consented, and where the woman hadn't contradicted that just said she couldn't remember, and where the only evidence against them was the alleged level of drunkeneness of the woman isn't sufficiently different to be worth discussing?

All the cited case law that I checked had featured the woman giving some sort of evidence against her rapists, with the closest being the rapists claiming some sort of implied consent rather than that she'd actually specifically consented as in this case, some of the older ones attempting to argue that the lack of an objection or lack of physical resistance was sufficient. None of this applied in this case.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 22, 2014)

toggle said:


> of course, mumsnet is the only place where repeating bullshit rape myths is considered unacceptable.


you do like misrepresenting people don't you.

That was clearly in reference to the quoted bit about referencing coke and alcohol use (which I'd only done in response to butchers accusations in the first place).


----------



## killer b (Oct 22, 2014)

I wonder why Evans' camp seems so keen to paint her as a gold digging slut, if she hasn't made any allegations?


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2014)

free spirit said:


> because I can't find the fucking trial records, and I could find the court of appeal records.
> 
> What I have had from the original trial was from various press reports, not the full transcript.


Unlikely you'd find a crown court transcript. Was there a transcriber for that particular court (they're not necessarily recorded)? I suppose if there was you could contact the relevant transcription company. The relevant facts are set out in the appeal Judgment anyway and you've seen that.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Oct 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> I wonder why Evans' camp seems so keen to paint her as a gold digging slut, if she hasn't made any allegations?


because they're nasty fucks and not that bright? some misguided attempt to stand up for their mate?

correct me if i'm wrong but i haven't seen anyone on this thread that Evans and co are paragons of virtue. most of fs arguments, from my understanding, are more about the machinations of the law and how it has created a potential blind-spot.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 22, 2014)

trashpony said:


> I was wondering where you got this bit of guff from - the Ched Evans site - and you've added the reference in because it wasn't bloody there originally. You're seriously quoting that as a reputable source of information?
> 
> It's also not bloody true - which I think you've since realised because you've quoted the appeal transcript extensively. Pretty grim that you haven't retracted it


FWIW, I've not edited that post at all, the clue being that there's not a note at the bottom of the post to say that I'd edited it.

and no I didn't quote his website as a reputable source of information, I specifically stated where that specific bit of information came from in order to make clear that I wasn't sure how reliable it was and allow people to judge for themselves, or investigate further if they wanted to.

If it does add any clarity then the appeal court documents state the following about what she reported to the police initially


> She reported the matter to the police.



Which to me doesn't appear to clarify anything about what specifically she had initially reported to the police.


----------



## MikeMcc (Oct 22, 2014)

free spirit said:


> does she look paralytic to you in that video?
> 
> are you saying that all the people who pull when out on the piss should be deemed as being rapists if the girl was more than 2.5 times the drink drive limit and therefore incapable of legally giving their consent? Or is it just if she can't remember what happened in the morning, not that it should be, as if she was too pissed to give consent then she was too pissed to give consent even if she can remember consenting.
> 
> ...


I've seen plenty of ladies tottering about wearing high heels when they have been absolutely blootered.  Everybody accepts she walked into the hotel willingly and had sex with the first lad.  The contention is that Evans came and had sex with her afterwards and, at that point, due to previous alcohol consumption entering her system or from alcohol consumed in the room , she was insensible, so couldn't give consent.  Personally I have been in states where I have been drunk to the point where my actions seem sensible at the time but I had been smashed, at no time have I thought that having sex with an effectively unconscious girl is in any way appropriate. 

Rightly or wrongly football players are held up as icons for kids to look up to, meet, and emulate.  Because of that he should not be allowed to be employed as a player.


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2014)

I presume that you're reading the same point 12 of the appeal Judgment that I am, fs? You haven't quoted all of it.

https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2012ewcacrim2559.pdf


----------



## killer b (Oct 22, 2014)

It's just something that doesn't add up - a key part if FS's argument is that she hasn't actually made a complaint: Yet, all of Evans' defence seems to hinge on trashing her. All of it. If she hasn't made a complaint, why would he be doing that? 

FS's legal arguments have been shown over and over to be confused at best by several people who actually understand how the law works. Which, presumably, is why they aren't the legal arguments of the defence team. Who are instead concentrating on pouring doubt on the victim's plausibility.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 22, 2014)

cesare said:


> Unlikely you'd find a crown court transcript. Was there a transcriber for that particular court (they're not necessarily recorded)? I suppose if there was you could contact the relevant transcription company. The relevant facts are set out in the appeal Judgment anyway and you've seen that.


If this were my job, then maybe I'd go to those lengths to obtain the full transcripts, as it is I've had to rely on the limited information that was available.

I would have been particularly interested to read the full transcript of the defences expert witness on alcohol effects though, as the appeal court dismissal really does seem to indicate that he was pretty bad and shot the defence in the foot by painting her as a lier and saying she couldn't have been drunk enough to have suffered memory loss, rather than pointing out that memory loss doesn't necessarily mean she was obviously incoherent.


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2014)

free spirit said:


> If this were my job, then maybe I'd go to those lengths to obtain the full transcripts, as it is I've had to rely on the limited information that was available.
> 
> I would have been particularly interested to read the full transcript of the defences expert witness on alcohol effects though, as the appeal court dismissal really does seem to indicate that he was pretty bad and shot the defence in the foot by painting her as a lier and saying she couldn't have been drunk enough to have suffered memory loss, rather than pointing out that memory loss doesn't necessarily mean she was obviously incoherent.



Which job, the defence lawyers? You think they didn't?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 22, 2014)

cesare said:


> I presume that you're reading the same point 12 of the appeal Judgment that I am, fs? You haven't quoted all of it.
> 
> https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2012ewcacrim2559.pdf


indeed, as previously pointed out I tend to prefer to quote the salient parts, but if you insist.



> The complainant said that her next memory was waking up in the hotel room at about 11.30am. She realised that she was alone. She was naked and had urinated in the bed. She had a headache and was confused. She reported the matter to the police.
> 
> She was examined by a doctor and various samples were taken. As a result of an examination of the samples, at that stage, notwithstanding the direct evidence that she had had a good deal to drink the evening before, no alcohol was detected. That may have been the consequence of its elimination over the course of time. Expert evidence sought to reconstruct the amount of alcohol she had consumed at an earlier stage. The doctor found no injuries to the complainant. The tests also revealed traces of cocaine and cannabis. The evidence was consistent with cocaine and cannabis having been ingested some days earlier.



Which still doesn't say exactly what was reported to the police in the first place, or what happened between her reporting the matter, and being examined by a police doctor.


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> It's just something that doesn't add up - a key part if FS's argument is that she hasn't actually made a complaint: Yet, all of Evans' defence seems to hinge on trashing her. All of it. If she hasn't made a complaint, why would he be doing that?
> 
> FS's legal arguments have been shown over and over to be confused at best by several people who actually understand how the law works. Which, presumably, is why they aren't the legal arguments of the defence team. Who are instead concentrating on pouring doubt on the victim's plausibility.


Read point 12 of that appeal Judgment I linked to.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 22, 2014)

cesare said:


> Which job, the defence lawyers? You think they didn't?


didn't what?

search for transcripts of the court case they were involved in?


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2014)

free spirit said:


> didn't what?
> 
> search for transcripts of the court case they were involved in?


You said if it was your job. I was asking which job you meant, the defence lawyer's job? Or some other job?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> It's just something that doesn't add up - a key part if FS's argument is that she hasn't actually made a complaint: Yet, all of Evans' defence seems to hinge on trashing her. All of it. If she hasn't made a complaint, why would he be doing that?
> 
> FS's legal arguments have been shown over and over to be confused at best by several people who actually understand how the law works. Which, presumably, is why they aren't the legal arguments of the defence team. Who are instead concentrating on pouring doubt on the victim's plausibility.


except that when the defence tried to appeal it they did so by trying to introduce expert witness testimony stating exactly what I've been saying about blackouts, because it hadn't been covered properly in the first trial due to the original defence team's decision to attempt to paint the woman as a lier instead.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 22, 2014)

cesare said:


> You said if it was your job. I was asking which job you meant, the defence lawyer's job? Or some other job?


if posting on urban were my job rather than a complete waste of time, then I might have considered going to the lengths you suggest to obtain the court records, but it isn't so I ran a few google searches, couldn't find it, so relied instead on what I could find, such as press reports from the time etc.


----------



## killer b (Oct 22, 2014)

The current team seem to be attempting to paint her a liar too, and the private investigator hired to investigate the matter.


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2014)

free spirit said:


> except that when the defence tried to appeal it they did so by trying to introduce expert witness testimony stating exactly what I've been saying about blackouts, because it hadn't been covered properly in the first trial due to the original defence team's decision to attempt to paint the woman as a lier instead.


To which the court commented: “As we have said, the judge rightly did not direct the jury to consider that loss of memory, even if the jury was satisfied that it was genuine -- that was an issue in the case -- provided evidence that at the time when sexual activity took place the complainant was not consenting. If the judge had said something like that, then the fresh evidence might have been of value. What the evidence does is to reinforce something denied by Dr Eccles: that the claim to loss of memory was not and could not be right. It suggests that, having consumed the amount of alcohol she had, the fact that her memory was lost of itself was of no great significance one way or another”.

The court were asked to consider this as fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 in a trial where the issue of loss of memory in the form of expert evidence was addressed. In effect, it was proposed that a new expert should be called to disprove the evidence given by the former defence expert and to assert no more than that the claimed loss of memory does not of itself lead to any implication that the complainant was not consenting to sexual activity at the time when it took place.

In refusing leave on this ground the single judge observed:

"I have perused the 29 page report but have found difficulty in identifying those 'specific areas' on which reliance is placed. In any event, the applicant called expert evidence at trial and it appears that the applicant now wishes to adduce some further and better expert evidence. I am not persuaded, especially where the specific aspects of a long report on which reliance is placed have not been identified with clarity, that the fresh evidence, even if admissible on appeal, is such as to render the verdict of the jury unsafe."

The court agreed with those observations; this fresh evidence does not, taken at its highest from the applicant's point of view, serve to undermine the safety of the jury's verdict. Accordingly, the court declined to admit it.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 22, 2014)

I know.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 22, 2014)

They're effectively saying that this expert witness evidence is different to that presented in the original case, but they've taken the judgement that it didn't make any significant difference that this evidence wasn't presented originally, and I think been a bit narked about them trying to introduce expert evidence that directly contradicted their original expert witness.

I disagree with that, as I'd expect that most people without significant experience of binge drinking culture, wouldn't really understand the idea that complete memory loss doesn't necessarily equate to someone being obviously incoherant without having this clearly explained to them by an expert. They'd make that leap by themselves whether directed to by the judge or not, and if the defence failed to guide them on that issue then that was a major failing IMO.


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2014)

free spirit said:


> if posting on urban were my job rather than a complete waste of time, then I might have considered going to the lengths you suggest to obtain the court records, but it isn't so I ran a few google searches, couldn't find it, so relied instead on what I could find, such as press reports from the time etc.



You were saying about not being to find the court transcripts. I was just explaining why you would find that difficult.


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2014)

free spirit said:


> They're effectively saying that this expert witness evidence is different to that presented in the original case, but they've taken the judgement that it didn't make any significant difference that this evidence wasn't presented originally, and I think been a bit narked about them trying to introduce expert evidence that directly contradicted their original expert witness.
> 
> I disagree with that, as I'd expect that most people without significant experience of binge drinking culture, wouldn't really understand the idea that complete memory loss doesn't necessarily equate to someone being obviously incoherant without having this clearly explained to them by an expert. They'd make that leap by themselves whether directed to by the judge or not, and if the defence failed to guide them on that issue then that was a major failing IMO.


What they said was that it was difficult to see from this fresh evidence, the parts that they were relying upon. They either didn't present it clearly or it didn't add anything.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 22, 2014)

cesare said:


> You were saying about not being to find the court transcripts. I was just explaining why you would find that difficult.


I understood that, I was just expaining why I wasn't about to do this bit.


> I suppose if there was you could contact the relevant transcription company.


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I understood that, I was just expaining why I wasn't about to do this bit.


Oh, that was just a suggestion if you were really keen.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 22, 2014)

cesare said:


> What they said was that it was difficult to see from this fresh evidence, the parts that they were relying upon. They either didn't present it clearly or it didn't add anything.


that's the problem with expert witnesses, they have a tendency to waffle and not explain things clearly IME.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 22, 2014)

cesare said:


> Oh, that was just a suggestion if you were really keen.


well, if anybody would actually give a shit I might, but on current form they'd mostly just revert to calling me a rape apologist cunt and refuse to read it or something anyway.

eta but thanks for the information, it might come in useful one day for something, and at least will stop me attempting to google for it.


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2014)

free spirit said:


> that's the problem with expert witnesses, they have a tendency to waffle and not explain things clearly IME.


Maybe it explained it very clearly but the court couldn't see how it was sufficient to make the jury's decision unsafe.


----------



## killer b (Oct 22, 2014)

What is your experience if expert witnesses?


----------



## free spirit (Oct 22, 2014)

cesare said:


> Maybe it explained it very clearly but the court couldn't see how it was sufficient to make the jury's decision unsafe.





> "I have perused the 29 page report but have found difficulty in identifying those 'specific areas' on which reliance is placed. In any event, the applicant called expert evidence at trial and it appears that the applicant now wishes to adduce some further and better expert evidence. I am not persuaded, especially where the specific aspects of a long report on which reliance is placed have not been identified with clarity, that the fresh evidence, even if admissible on appeal, is such as to render the verdict of the jury unsafe."



code for 29 pages of waffle that obscured whatever point they were trying to make.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> What is your experience if expert witnesses?


I helped run consultancy projects for my dad and collegues for a while, including expert witness reports and statements. One of which the lawyer asked me if I was expert enough to give evidence instead due to the amount of incomprehensible waffle that I was able to translate into something understandable. I declined.

eta and that was also the opinion the barrister gave about expert witnesses waffling and obscuring the point, so I assumed it's not just my dad and his collegues.

as an example he just submitted a 120 page objection to a public inquiry, resulting in them having to adjourn for a week to attempt to read it and respond to it.


----------



## killer b (Oct 22, 2014)

Ok.


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2014)

free spirit said:


> code for 29 pages of waffle that obscured whatever point they were trying to make.


That was a waste of time and money then.


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2014)

Edit, it's already been said over and over, not adding anything.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 22, 2014)

free spirit said:


> indeed, as previously pointed out I tend to prefer to quote the salient parts, but if you insist.
> 
> 
> 
> Which still doesn't say exactly what was reported to the police in the first place, or what happened between her reporting the matter, and being examined by a police doctor.


So nothing about a handbag or mobile. Do you think the police routinely call in a doctor when a women goes to report a lost phone and handbag?


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 22, 2014)

free spirit said:


> The cap seemed to fit.
> 
> 
> potentially. I didn't expect that everyone involved in drunken sex would suddenly find themselves locked up, just that they were more vulnerable to it if this was how the law was to be applied more widely.
> ...



You clearly don't care how you come across as you;
Whine about being called names but are happy to do it to others,
Say one thing then claim it means something else,
Openly contridict yourself  (you say she was not too drunk to be able to give informed consent but in this reply state that in your opinion she had drunk enough to black out...both can not be true)
You believe his version of events stating that he clearly believed she had consented.
You have, regardless of your denials, impled he was set up by the police...you believe it is an unsafe conviction...that the law was improperly applied...your denial is simply pedantry. 
You do think a pissed man having consensual sex with a pissed woman is at risk of being charged with rape...hence you newcastle town centre example.
You claim not to be aware of his lies yet claim to have read a wide variety of materials on this case from different sources? That shows you have not read that widely.

You have empathy only for the rapist 

Calling me stupid again only adds to my belief that you are an arrogant, self pitying, misogynistic fuck wit who I am glad I dont know in a personal capacity.

Your views and you become more odious by the post


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2014)

free spirit said:


> so the fact this is the only one of them where both defendants actually claimed she'd specifically consented, and where the woman hadn't contradicted that just said she couldn't remember, and where the only evidence against them was the alleged level of drunkeneness of the woman isn't sufficiently different to be worth discussing?
> 
> All the cited case law that I checked had featured the woman giving some sort of evidence against her rapists, with the closest being the rapists claiming some sort of implied consent rather than that she'd actually specifically consented as in this case, some of the older ones attempting to argue that the lack of an objection or lack of physical resistance was sufficient. None of this applied in this case.


Repeating yourself doesn't make your drivel any more true,you repugnant human being.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 22, 2014)

The fact the two blokes legged it seems to suggest to me they were suspect


----------



## BigTom (Oct 22, 2014)

Can someone clarify something for me about the verdicts in these cases please?

My memory/understanding is that in both cases the woman was judged to have been too drunk to give consent, but in the first case the jury decided that it was not beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant would not have known that she was too drunk to give consent*, whilst in the second, the jury decided that it was beyond reasonable doubt for Evans to not have known she was unable to give consent.

Is that right? 

*horrible phrasing, was going to say that the jury decided that it was reasonable for the first bloke to think he had consent, but technically that won't be what they've decided, they may have thought that he should have known he didn't, but that couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 22, 2014)

Well she agreed to get in a cab with bloke 1 and presumably agreed to go to the hotel with him. Ched Evans rocked up later after being informed by text from bloke 1 that he 'had a bird'. Charming.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2014)

As Evans arrived later, even more of the alcohol she had drunk had entered her bloodstream, so she was even more pissed when Evans arrived.

Which seems to be a difficult fact to understand.


----------



## Cid (Oct 22, 2014)

BigTom said:


> Can someone clarify something for me about the verdicts in these cases please?
> 
> My memory/understanding is that in both cases the woman was judged to have been too drunk to give consent, but in the first case the jury decided that it was not beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant would not have known that she was too drunk to give consent*, whilst in the second, the jury decided that it was beyond reasonable doubt for Evans to not have known she was unable to give consent.
> 
> ...



That's about right. The defence has to raise some evidence that the defendant had a reasonable belief in consent... The prosecution must then disprove that evidence beyond reasonable doubt. In McDonald's case the jury decided that it could not be disproved beyond reasonable doubt, in Evans' case that it was. The reasonable element (in the 'reasonable belief' bit) is important as it's objective. The previous standard was purely subjective so even a completely unreasonable belief would be sufficient.


----------



## marty21 (Oct 22, 2014)

saw on twitter that the woman who started the petition asking Sheff Utd not to sign Ched Evans (150,000+ signatures) has been getting rape threats from ched supporters


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 22, 2014)

What a wonderful world we live in.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2014)

marty21 said:


> saw on twitter that the woman who started the petition asking Sheff Utd not to sign Ched Evans (150,000+ signatures) has been getting rape threats from ched supporters


very good statement from her:

Over the weekend I have been targeted by relentless abuse from men on Twitter. Some of it has been sexist and predictable and simply annoying like “get back in the kitchen you sl*g”. Some of it has been quite threatening and scary at times like the man who told me “It’s a real shame you and Peter Sutcliffe never crossed paths!”

Some of it leaves me cold like the one threatening to rape me with my own petition.

This is interspersed with men who needed to tell me how I should have done the petition. What else I could do. What I should also be doing which would be far better - like solving Ebola.

It got a bit quieter yesterday and I started to think the storm was over and I could begin to focus on the other things that concern me around women’s rights. After all feminism - no matter what Ched’s mum thinks, isn’t just about whether a rapist gets his lucrative footballing career back.

Or whether he goes on to influence the views of sexual consent of thousands of young men who are just forming their views of how they should treat women in a sexual situation because he is in denial about the nature of what rape is


----------



## BigTom (Oct 22, 2014)

Cheers



belboid said:


> As Evans arrived later, even more of the alcohol she had drunk had entered her bloodstream, so she was even more pissed when Evans arrived.
> 
> Which seems to be a difficult fact to understand.






Cid said:


> That's about right. The defence has to raise some evidence that the defendant had a reasonable belief in consent... The prosecution must then disprove that evidence beyond reasonable doubt. In McDonald's case the jury decided that it could not be disproved beyond reasonable doubt, in Evans' case that it was. The reasonable element (in the 'reasonable belief' bit) is important as it's objective. The previous standard was purely subjective so even a completely unreasonable belief would be sufficient.



So was the different verdicts down to the jury deciding that she wasn't too drunk to consent when she met the first bloke, but by the time she got to the hotel she was, so the first bloke could have a reasonable belief to consent as she wasn't too drunk when she agreed to go to the hotel, but Ched having arrived later never had a time when she was able to give consent, or was it that she was never able to give consent but because the first bloke met her after the pub in relatively normal circumstances this would mean that he would have a reasonable belief that she could consent, whereas Ched coming to the hotel following the text was clearly being a predatory fuck and no way he could have a reasonable belief of consent?

Cos if it's the latter then I don't see how these cases open the doors to prosecuting people after drunken one-night stands, if anything I'd say that they show that you're not going to get a conviction in those circumstances, or the first bloke would have been convicted too, surely?
If it's the former then I'm not convinced it directly relates either, since Ched's behaviour wasn't that of someone on the pull on a friday night, where the first bloke's behaviour was*. I think that the jury would be able to see the difference between the actions and why one is rape and the other isn't (necessarily). I don't know how this would change if the people only ever met when one was too drunk to consent though.

*someone who is a predatory rapist and going out on a friday/sat night to find women who are too drunk and take advantage of them will behave in a very similar way to someone who isn't a predatory rapist but pulls someone and genuinely thinks they can give consent, so it's not like there isn't a grey area in reality, but that may be all that means he got acquitted as it couldn't be shown beyond reasonable doubt that he was on the pull and not reasonable to know she was too far gone, rather than heading out to target very drunk women.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 22, 2014)

i wonder if we can find anyone to defend rape threats?  there's got to be someone on here who will do that.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> i wonder if we can find anyone to defend rape threats?  there's got to be someone on here who will do that.


'Satire'


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 22, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> i wonder if we can find anyone to defend rape threats?  there's got to be someone on here who will do that.


 
I don't know but there's a few who'll go 'well of course rape threats are bad but the REAL issue here is...'.


----------



## Cid (Oct 22, 2014)

BigTom said:


> Cheers
> 
> So was the different verdicts down to the jury deciding that she wasn't too drunk to consent when she met the first bloke, but by the time she got to the hotel she was, so the first bloke could have a reasonable belief to consent as she wasn't too drunk when she agreed to go to the hotel, but Ched having arrived later never had a time when she was able to give consent, or was it that she was never able to give consent but because the first bloke met her after the pub in relatively normal circumstances this would mean that he would have a reasonable belief that she could consent, whereas Ched coming to the hotel following the text was clearly being a predatory fuck and no way he could have a reasonable belief of consent?
> 
> ...



It's the latter - this is to do with the timing component of rape; it is always at the time of penetration (in fact it's possible to withdraw consent during intercourse), meaning capacity will always be assessed at that point, not earlier. The jury decided two things; capacity for consent and reasonable belief in consent. The jury decided there was no capacity for consent with either man, but that McDonald had a reasonable belief (they met on the street, he then took her to the hotel etc).


----------



## BigTom (Oct 22, 2014)

Cheers Cid, it is how I thought then, and I don't really understand how this case can be seen to make it more likely/possible for someone to be convicted of rape when they've pulled on a night out, as that's what happened with the first bloke, who was acquitted. Ched is very different circumstances, turning up at the hotel following the text.


----------



## toggle (Oct 22, 2014)

likesfish said:


> The fact the two blokes legged it seems to suggest to me they were suspect



in conjunction with everything else, it adds to the pictue. on it's own, no


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 22, 2014)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...estigate-website-showing-video-of-victim.html



> Police are investigating a website set up by Ched Evans' family after a video showing the woman he raped appeared online.
> 
> The CCTV footage showed his victim arriving at the Rhyl hotel, where she was raped by the disgraced footballer.
> 
> ...



It's not since been removed: On his site; judge for yourself


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 22, 2014)

you should probably break that link


----------



## andysays (Oct 22, 2014)

"judge-for-youself", as part of the url on a website dedicated to pushing a dishonest and one sided version of the facts?

Even if everything else about this case is disgusting, it's nice to see unintentional irony still gets a look in


----------



## killer b (Oct 22, 2014)

Yeah, I'd recommend a little wander round that website for anyone not totally sure where they stand on this...


----------



## marty21 (Oct 22, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> i wonder if we can find anyone to defend rape threats?  there's got to be someone on here who will do that.


 banter 

the Sheffield fans are on the banter bus and it's all a bit of banter


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2014)

marty21 said:


> banter
> 
> the Sheffield fans are on the banter bus and it's all a bit of banter


Oh aye? No additional yelps about the right to freedom of speech?


----------



## marty21 (Oct 22, 2014)

cesare said:


> Oh aye? No additional yelps about the right to freedom of speech?


 I'm sure they would be yelping a lot if their female friends were receiving rape threats


----------



## cesare (Oct 22, 2014)

marty21 said:


> I'm sure they would be yelping a lot if their female friends were receiving rape threats


You'd think so, wouldn't you!


----------



## Wilf (Oct 22, 2014)

That daft fuck Michael Buerk wades in, with a bit of abuse for the victim:
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...-says-bbcs-michael-buerk/ar-BBaByp9?ocid=iehp


----------



## trashpony (Oct 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> Yeah, I'd recommend a little wander round that website for anyone not totally sure where they stand on this...


I've thought about it but I don't want to give it any more hits - I suspect this thread's given it enough already. 



Wilf said:


> That daft fuck Michael Buerk wades in, with a bit of abuse for the victim:
> http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...-says-bbcs-michael-buerk/ar-BBaByp9?ocid=iehp


I thought I'd misheard him this morning. What a fucking slut-shaming wanker. I must remember to turn the radio off this evening - if I have to listen to the Moral Maze discussing this subject, I may end up bashing my lovely DAB radio with a hammer


----------



## articul8 (Oct 22, 2014)

trashpony said:


> I thought I'd misheard him this morning. What a fucking slut-shaming wanker. I must remember to turn the radio off this evening - if I have to listen to the Moral Maze discussing this subject, I may end up bashing my lovely DAB radio with a hammer



..yes, especially if that Claire Fox and Michael Portillo are on it (like usual)


----------



## sim667 (Oct 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> Yeah, I'd recommend a little wander round that website for anyone not totally sure where they stand on this...


 
Is there a position other than he did it, was sentenced.


----------



## killer b (Oct 22, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Is there a position other than he did it, was sentenced.


22 pages says 'yeah'


----------



## sim667 (Oct 22, 2014)

killer b said:


> 22 pages says 'yeah'


 
Despite the video of him doing it?

Oh dear.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 22, 2014)

Michael Buerk has just trailed the Moral Maze again. He sounded satisfyingly subdued, unlike his tone of breathless excitement this morning


----------



## emanymton (Oct 22, 2014)

marty21 said:


> saw on twitter that the woman who started the petition asking Sheff Utd not to sign Ched Evans (150,000+ signatures) has been getting rape threats from ched supporters


So apparent did Judy whatshernames daughter because of the comments Judy made. Which is just, well I can't think of a word for it.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 22, 2014)

Rape threats are weird. Ime people very rarely say "I'm going to rape you" in real life in fact almost never. They say "I'm going to fuck you up" or "I'm going to kill you". On the internet in seems like totally the reverse is true.

How is a rape threat even a thing, like, how does it occur to someone. It makes me feel a bit bemused tbh.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 22, 2014)

I guess people did used to threaten to rape feminists. Anyway like I said, I think it's weird.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 22, 2014)

8115 said:


> I guess people did used to threaten to rape feminists.



They still do, every day.  It's been in the papers quite a bit recently.



8115 said:


> Anyway like I said, I think it's weird.



It's pretty common for something "weird."


----------



## 8115 (Oct 22, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> They still do, every day.  It's been in the papers quite a bit recently.
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty common for something "weird."


It's common on the internet, that was my point.


----------



## lighterthief (Oct 22, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Despite the video of him doing it?
> 
> Oh dear.


Is there an actual video of the rape itself??


----------



## sim667 (Oct 22, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> They still do, every day.  It's been in the papers quite a bit recently.
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty common for something "weird."



It's a shock thing, someone can't form an opinion so says the most shocking thing in order to get a response....... The result of doing so belittles the actual meaning of the word to the point where an 11 year will happily say it in online gaming to someone they've just killed, and even adults will refer to pranking someone on facebook as "frape".

We live in a world with Internet users that will quite happily hound someone into taking their own life, go out of their way to ruin lives and abuse victims with absolutely no shame or a second thought. Heinous threats slot nicely into that spectrum of person unfortunately


----------



## marty21 (Oct 22, 2014)

Evans has released a personal video statement, basically apologising for his 'infidelity' and begging to be allowed to play football, claimed it was consensual,and he was stupid  not a word about his victim


----------



## weepiper (Oct 22, 2014)

marty21 said:


> Evans has released a personal video statement, basically apologising for his 'infidelity' and begging to be allowed to play football, claimed it was consensual,and he was stupid  not a word about his victim


So he's basically apologising to everyone _except_ the woman he raped?


----------



## trashpony (Oct 22, 2014)

marty21 said:


> Evans has released a personal video statement, basically apologising for his 'infidelity' and begging to be allowed to play football, claimed it was consensual,and he was stupid  not a word about his victim


He and his family have entirely demonised her. I don't think they can see her as a real human being because if she's a real person with real feelings, what their vile son/boyfriend did is beyond despicable. 

Having (thanks to this thread and free spirit's disturbing stance) read the appeal transcript, I think Clayton McDonald was bloody lucky to have got off. Interestingly, normally that level of accusation/evidence even if a not guilty verdict is returned, results in a fair amount of public and professional mistrust (Craig Charles springs to mind). Evans' conviction has diverted a lot of the negative attention McDonald would have otherwise received. I wonder if they're still bezzers? 

Is McDonald a lot less successful as a footballer than Evans?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 22, 2014)

trashpony said:


> Is McDonald a lot less successful as a footballer than Evans?



Yes. He's so shit he's played for Grimsby.


----------



## marty21 (Oct 22, 2014)

trashpony said:


> He and his family have entirely demonised her. I don't think they can see her as a real human being because if she's a real person with real feelings, what their vile son/boyfriend did is beyond despicable.
> 
> Having (thanks to this thread and free spirit's disturbing stance) read the appeal transcript, I think Clayton McDonald was bloody lucky to have got off. Interestingly, normally that level of accusation/evidence even if a not guilty verdict is returned, results in a fair amount of public and professional mistrust (Craig Charles springs to mind). Evans' conviction has diverted a lot of the negative attention McDonald would have otherwise received. I wonder if they're still bezzers?
> 
> Is McDonald a lot less successful as a footballer than Evans?


McDonald has been very quiet of late, not surprisingly

he currently plays in the Conference (5th Division in the league  structure) so yes, less successful as a footballer


----------



## trashpony (Oct 22, 2014)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Yes. He's so shit he's played for Grimsby.


No way


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2014)

trashpony said:


> Is McDonald a lot less successful as a footballer than Evans?


Yes, an average player in the lower leagues (one game for us, sadly).  Evans was, far and away, United's best player. If he hadn't been, there would be  nothing like the clamour for having him back. But there really is an attitude of 'we need him, so he's innocent'


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2014)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Yes. He's so shit he's played for Grimsby.


yes - at least we told him to fuck off sharpish


----------



## trashpony (Oct 22, 2014)

belboid said:


> Yes, an average player in the lower leagues (one game for us, sadly).  Evans was, far and away, United's best player. If he hadn't been, there would be  nothing like the clamour for having him back. But there really is an attitude of 'we need him, so he's innocent'


Well yeah. This is what I was wondering. No one would have given a shit if the situations had been reversed. Or very few people. But Evans had potential and he's raped that potential up the wall. So no wonder his girlfriend and his family want him to be forgiven. He was their ticket out of dullsville Wales


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 22, 2014)

trashpony said:


> Well yeah. This is what I was wondering. No one would have given a shit if the situations had been reversed. Or very few people. But Evans had potential and he's raped that potential up the wall. So no wonder his girlfriend and his family want him to be forgiven. He was their ticket out of dullsville Wales


A really disturbing thing is that his partners father is supposed to be a millionaire so they actually don't need his money...people sometimes sell their souls for wealth but as they've actually got loads of it fuck knows what motivates their sick behaviour


----------



## Athos (Oct 22, 2014)

free spirit said:


> So we agree on that at least.
> 
> Had they actually introduced that evidence/ expert witness testimony to the jury, chances are we wouldn't be having this conversation IMO.
> 
> ...



So what this boils down to is that, despite not hearing the evidence they did or being party to their reasoning, you think the jury returned the wrong verdict.  Bizarrely, this is based on evidence that they didn't hear, because the defendant chose not to adduce it (and, in fact, adduced evidence which effectively said the opposite).  You've abandoned the notion that this case sets a precedent, but suggest it might have an impact over time, despite the fact that it hasn't in the two and a half years that have past.

What an embarrassment.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 22, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> A really disturbing thing is that his partners father is supposed to be a millionaire so they actually don't need his money...people sometimes sell their souls for wealth but as they've actually got loads of it fuck knows what motivates their sick behaviour


Yes, so I believe. And I'm sure that cash is funding their desperate media campaign. And it is desperate - their attacks on the media reports are getting ever more ludicrous. 

Their motivation is very interesting - I think they've hitched to his celeb wagon and can't (or don't want to) get off. Imagine how shit it must be to be his girlfriend. For her to continue to support him, I can only assume h self-esteem must be on the floor


----------



## marty21 (Oct 22, 2014)

trashpony said:


> Well yeah. This is what I was wondering. No one would have given a shit if the situations had been reversed. Or very few people. But Evans had potential and he's raped that potential up the wall. So no wonder his girlfriend and his family want him to be forgiven. He was their ticket out of dullsville Wales


he was a very good player, would have been playing in the premiership by now had he not raped a woman, he had scored 100+ goals, and played for Wales


----------



## andysays (Oct 22, 2014)

Am I right in thinking that Evans has been released early under some sort of licence or similar? (I know it's called licence when you're released from a life sentence, maybe it's called something different in this case)

If that's the case, isn't his current behaviour (demonising the victim, not simply waiting for his appeal but making provocative statements like this most recent one) potentially breaking the terms of that licence and possibly going to land him back inside?

Or am I totally misunderstanding how it works?


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2014)

andysays said:


> Am I right in thinking that Evans has been released early under some sort of licence or similar? (I know it's called licence when you're released from a life sentence, maybe it's called something different in this case)
> 
> If that's the case, isn't his current behaviour (demonising the victim, not simply waiting for his appeal but making provocative statements like this most recent one) potentially breaking the terms of that licence and possibly going to land him back inside?
> 
> Or am I totally misunderstanding how it works?


Standard release date, with good behaviour.  There will be some form of license, but he wont have broken it with his statement.  _He _made no comments about the victim, and can't be responsible for some other peoples' statements.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 22, 2014)

I think I'm right, though, that some footage of the victim prior to her going to the hotel was posted up on Ched Evans's site. 

Is that legally acceptable, if it only gives a partial picture? 

(Apols if I'm misremembering details from earlier up the thread)


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 22, 2014)

See post #637 William


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 22, 2014)

Thanks redsquirrel . Not sure I'd want to actually find/watch that footage (I think I sort-of remember some much earlier posts on this thread about it also).

But I'd really like to know how the Police proceed with that. Bang out of order (to say the very least) to post it up, on any grounds thinkable


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 22, 2014)

I thoroughly disagree, to once again say the very least.  with free spirit generally on this thread, but especially with his post on page 19 in reply to mine. But it's too late  to respond to that properly right now.

Suffice to say for now that my response to his position is not based on morality. Will get back to this some other time.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 22, 2014)

marty21 said:


> saw on twitter that the woman who started the petition asking Sheff Utd not to sign Ched Evans (150,000+ signatures) has been getting rape threats from ched supporters



I wonder if this would actually happen sans internet anonymity. Nonces are generally despised regardless of their reasoning. And I've seen and heard some proper shite in my time but never anyone threaten rape. You'd get chinned pretty rapidly for that kind of talk in the real world.


----------



## Part 2 (Oct 22, 2014)

Just watched the video. It's sickening, just an apology to his gf and a grovelling 'please let me play again'.

Fucking bizarre that a father would support his own daughter's bf when he'd been convicted of something like this tbh. Most dad's would be saying ' fuck him right off'.


----------



## savoloysam (Oct 22, 2014)

bmd said:


> Is it complicated? He's done his time and therefore, if we believe in the justice system, he has a right to work in certain jobs. He will never work with vulnerable people but you don't need to pass a DBS check to be a footballer.



This, basically. Whether people agree with it or not. He has served his time and is allowed to seek work in whatever professions are legal for him to do so.

I hear people calling for him to be given a lifetime football ban and such but the law doesn't work that way.

Having said that there is so much emotion flying about around this case i don't think any professional clubs are going to go anywhere near him.


----------



## bmd (Oct 22, 2014)

savoloysam said:


> This, basically. Whether people agree with it or not. He has served his time and is allowed to seek work in whatever professions are legal for him to do so.
> 
> I hear people calling for him to be given a lifetime football ban and such but the law doesn't work that way.
> 
> Having said that there is so much emotion flying about around this case i don't think any professional clubs are going to go anywhere near him.



Yeah, I have thought about this a lot since then and I have changed my mind. He's really high profile. So he has quite a lot of influence. Therefore he's a role model. If he's allowed to play for a Premier Division club again when he clearly has no remorse then what message does that send to children? To the boys it's "as long as you have enough influence then the consequences of a truly horrific crime are minimal." To the girls it's "if you get raped then your life as you know it will end and that's your fault." I can't support that.


----------



## savoloysam (Oct 22, 2014)

bmd said:


> Yeah, I have thought about this a lot since then and I have changed my mind. He's really high profile. So he has quite a lot of influence. Therefore he's a role model. If he's allowed to play for a Premier Division club again when he clearly has no remorse then what message does that send to children? To the boys it's "as long as you have enough influence then the consequences of a truly horrific crime are minimal." To the girls it's "if you get raped then your life as you know it will end and that's your fault." I can't support that.



What you are talking there are morals. Not laws and legal rights.

He's never played for a premier league team as far as i know. Sheffield United were/are league one at the time i believe. I had never even heard of the guy until i heard of the case.

In any case like i said I don't think any of the professional clubs in this country are going to go near him anytime soon.


----------



## bmd (Oct 22, 2014)

savoloysam said:


> What you are talking there are morals. Not laws and legal rights.
> 
> He's never played for a premier league as far as i know. Sheffield United were/are league one at the time i believe. I had never even heard of the guy until i heard of the case.
> 
> In any case like i said I don't any of professional clubs are going to go near him anytime soon.



It is a moralistic stance. I hope that he won't be employed by Sheffield United again because the way he has gathered support from some fans is sickening. I wonder how rape victims feel about that aspect of this case.


----------



## savoloysam (Oct 22, 2014)

I think Sheffield United have already stated they would not offer him another contract. As i said I would be majorly surprised if any club in this country does.


----------



## belboid (Oct 22, 2014)

savoloysam said:


> I think Sheffield United have already stated they would not offer him another contract. As i said I would be majorly surprised if any club in this country does.


they've stated no such thing.  They've been appaling throughout the whole affair (not least paying him 20k a week while he was in jail, as his contract ran out), and are still balancing the risks/benefits to resigning him.


----------



## bmd (Oct 22, 2014)

savoloysam said:


> I think Sheffield United have already stated they would not offer him another contract. As i said I would be majorly surprised if any club in this country does.



I wouldn't.

Rape is not seen as a serious crime by far too many people. In fact, it's seen as a joke by a lot of people. I think there's an opportunity here to send a message. Fuck Ched Evans; remorseless rapist and fuck all those utter bastards chanting his name on the terraces.


----------



## toggle (Oct 23, 2014)

bmd said:


> It is a moralistic stance. I hope that he won't be employed by Sheffield United again because the way he has gathered support from some fans is sickening. I wonder how rape victims feel about that aspect of this case.



this doesn't look a lot different to how a lot of rape victims are treated, just that his notoriety/popularity increaces the scale of the victim blaming, slut shaming and associated bullshit.


----------



## savoloysam (Oct 23, 2014)

belboid said:


> they've stated no such thing.  They've been appaling throughout the whole affair (not least paying him 20k a week while he was in jail, as his contract ran out), and are still balancing the risks/benefits to resigning him.



Really. I thought he had his contract ripped up when he was found guilty?


----------



## toggle (Oct 23, 2014)

bmd said:


> I wouldn't.
> 
> Rape is not seen as a serious crime by far too many people. In fact, it's seen as a joke by a lot of people. I think there's an opportunity here to send a message. Fuck Ched Evans; remorseless rapist and fuck all those utter bastards chanting his name on the terraces.



i think a lot of that depends on who the victim or perpetrator are. there's a lot of judgementalism on lifestyle, plus a lot of race, class, and other dividers on whether it's seen as a henious attack on a innocent or whether the poor bloke is the real victim of a golddigger slut. ti's only seen as a serious crime if the perpetrator and victim fit certain stereotypes.


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2014)

savoloysam said:


> Really. I thought he had his contract ripped up when he was found guilty?


No, it had two months to go when he was jailed.  They paid him in full.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 23, 2014)

Chip Barm said:


> Just watched the video. It's sickening, just an apology to his gf and a grovelling 'please let me play again'.
> 
> Fucking bizarre that a father would support his own daughter's bf when he'd been convicted of something like this tbh. Most dad's would be saying ' fuck him right off'.


 The video won't make any difference to anything really, but it's extraordinarily badly judged.  Feels like bad taste to be assessing how his PR campaign is going, when the more important point is that he's an unrepentant rapist, but it strikes entirely the wrong note to focus on getting his job back in his first interview.


----------



## bmd (Oct 23, 2014)

toggle said:


> i think a lot of that depends on who the victim or perpetrator are. there's a lot of judgementalism on lifestyle, plus a lot of race, class, and other dividers on whether it's seen as a henious attack on a innocent or whether the poor bloke is the real victim of a golddigger slut. ti's only seen as a serious crime if the perpetrator and victim fit certain stereotypes.



Stereotyping is prevalent across a lot of crimes but I think stereotyping of rape victims is massively damaging. From reporting, to the judicial process to living with it. Can you imagine a violent attack victim being treated so badly that they leave the country?


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 23, 2014)

bmd said:


> Stereotyping is prevalent across a lot of crimes but I think stereotyping of rape victims is massively damaging. From reporting, to the judicial process to living with it. Can you imagine a violent attack victim being treated so badly that they leave the country?


There are enormous problems with the way rape victims are treated, from reporting right through to prosecution and after. No other crime has such a low conviction rate where the victim is blamed for the crime. We need to get away from this viewpoint and this whole case has done nothing but reinforce stereotypical and damaging views of rape victims.


----------



## free spirit (Oct 23, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> I thoroughly disagree, to once again say the very least.  with free spirit generally on this thread, but especially with his post on page 19 in reply to mine. But it's too late  to respond to that properly right now.
> 
> Suffice to say for now that my response to his position is not based on morality. Will get back to this some other time.



I'll try one last time to explain my problem with this situation.

1 - We have case law that says clearly that drunken sex is ok, drunken consent is still consent.

2 - If someone was too drunk to actually give their consent, and they were obviously too drunk to give their consent then that would have been rape. Previously this meant that they hadn't actually consented as they were too drunk to speak or work out what was going on or similar.

3 - We now have a case where this has been extended to mean that drunken consent (or alleged drunken consent) is nullified if the person who allegedly gave that consent was in alcoholic blackout at the time and can't remember anything at all about what happened when they wake up the next morning.

The inference of this being that she must have been, and must have appeared to have been too drunk to give her consent at that time if she can't remember it.

*Why this is a problem*
The problem with this being that it can be nie on impossible to tell the difference between someone who is merely drunk, and someone who is in alcoholic blackout and won't remember a thing about what's happened in the morning.

The person who is in alcoholic blackout can appear to all intents and purposes just as lucid as the person who is merely drunk*, they may well be able to hold deep and meaningful conversations, walk, dance etc they're just incapable of actually laying down new memories of what is going on while they are in that state.

So the dividing line between point 1 and point 3 is one that can be pretty much impossible for someone to determine at the time, unless they specifically do something to test out the persons short term memory or similar, meaning a person could legitimately think they were just in a drunken consent situation, whereas actually, unbeknown to them, the other person was actually at point 3 and was incapable of remembering what had happened and could therefore be deemed to have been too drunk to legitimately consent, and therefore to have been raped.


So her story stacks up, the footballers story potentially stacks up as well, and the 2 aren't contradictory.  The prosecutions version of events really doesn't, and seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of alcoholic blackouts, as the prosection should have needed to prove that the guy must have known at the time that she was incapacitated through alcohol in order for this to stick.


* this is particularly the case if the drinks involved contained a lot of caffeine, sugar etc such as vodka red bull, or vodka and cokes, as the caffeine and sugar ensures the person seems wide awake and lively, while the alcohol prevents the memory formation from happening. Same with coke, speed etc. Alcoholic blackout is usually brought on by a rapid rise in the blood alcohol levels in a short space of time, so several spirits in quick succession as was the case here, it's entirely different to the situation when getting gradually drunk over a few pints, just in case anyone wasn't aware of the difference.


That's me done with this for a while at least, as A I appear to be going round in circles with this, and B I'm off to Spain for a few days, and am fucked if I'm going to waste my time over there arguing the toss about this on Urban.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 23, 2014)

savoloysam said:


> This, basically. Whether people agree with it or not. He has served his time and is allowed to seek work in whatever professions are legal for him to do so.
> 
> I hear people calling for him to be given a lifetime football ban and such but the law doesn't work that way.
> 
> Having said that there is so much emotion flying about around this case i don't think any professional clubs are going to go anywhere near him.


A footballer is a privileged position. It's high profile and players naturally become role models to kids. What's wrong with him getting a job on the bins?


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I'll try one last time to explain my problem with this situation.
> 
> 1 - We have case law that says clearly that drunken sex is ok, drunken consent is still consent.
> 
> ...



The only people alleging consent was given were the bloke aquitted and the convicted rapist...so it says a lot about you that you continue to claim that consent was given...you can only come to this conclussion if you believe the men.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 23, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> The only people alleging consent was given were the bloke aquitted and the convicted rapist...so it says a lot about you that you continue to claim that consent was given...you can only come to this conclussion if you believe the men.


No one has given any evidence that consent was not given. Why shouldn't they be believed? They actually supplied the only evidence that sex took place!


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 23, 2014)

Regarding his right to work...there are thousands of jobs he can do...he is not interested in those jobs, he is interested in the wealth and fame of being a footballer and imo he should be denied that job.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 23, 2014)

1927 said:


> No one has given any evidence that consent was not given. Why shouldn't they be believed? They actually supplied the only evidence that sex took place!


The level of inebriation of the woman was the evidence that consent couldn't have been given. It applies to those who have consumed too much and children under the age of 14 are deemed unable to give consent in the eyes of the law.

So if the woman couldn't even remember that sex took place that works against those accused, not in their favour.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 23, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> Regarding his right to work...there are thousands of jobs he can do...he is not interested in those jobs, he is interested in the wealth and fame of being a footballer and imo he should be denied that job.


For a forum that believes in human rights this is a very dangerous precedent to be promoting, where would you draw the line?

Can drug dealers get jobs, murderers, muggers?


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 23, 2014)

1927 said:


> No one has given any evidence that consent was not given. Why shouldn't tis not tolerable in a rape case...it will give ey be believed? They actually supplied the only evidence that sex took place!


Cos you cant prove what was said without recording equipment. It becomes one persons word against another...and that is not acceptable in a rape case. It would make most rape victims  in an impossible position. The evidence presented to the jury led them to believe she was not capable of given consent...due to how much she had drunk.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 23, 2014)

1927 said:


> For a forum that believes in human rights this is a very dangerous precedent to be promoting, where would you draw the line?
> 
> Can drug dealers get jobs, murderers, muggers?


It's someone's human right to be a footballer? Get tae fuck.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 23, 2014)

1927 said:


> For a forum that believes in hfootballers this is a very dangerous precedent to be promoting, where would you draw the line?
> 
> Can drug dealers get jobs, murderers, muggers?


Did not say he could not get a job...said he did not have a right to be a footballer


----------



## Part 2 (Oct 23, 2014)

Not being a football fan as such was trying to think of the other fella who assaulted a woman in a bar....Marlon King.

If he's anything to go by, Evans will play football again no question about it.


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2014)

1927 said:


> No one has given any evidence that consent was not given. Why shouldn't they be believed? They actually supplied the only evidence that sex took place!


Why shouldn't they be believed? Because it was shown that Evans lied. Pretty fucking simple. But don't let that boring old fact other you, you keep making excuses for the rapist.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I'll try one last time to explain my problem with this situation.
> 
> 1 - We have case law that says clearly that drunken sex is ok, drunken consent is still consent.
> 
> ...



For the umpteenth time - the bit in bold is just pure fantasy. No one in court either argued or inferred that the blackout was proof that you the victim couldn't consent. 

You've had this pointed out to you over and over again. At this point I'm left marvelling at why you're prepared to make shit up in order to defend a convicted rapist.


----------



## Athos (Oct 23, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I'll try one last time to explain my problem with this situation.
> 
> 1 - We have case law that says clearly that drunken sex is ok, drunken consent is still consent.
> 
> 2 - If someone was too drunk to actually give their consent, and they were obviously too drunk to give their consent then that would have been rape. Previously this meant that they hadn't actually consented as they were too drunk to speak or work out what was going on or similar.



No it didn't; you've inaccurately characterised the law before this case.  Previously it meant exactly as it does now: that if they lacked capacity (through voluntary intoxication, or any other reason), then there could be no consent.




free spirit said:


> 3 - We now have a case where this has been extended to mean that drunken consent (or alleged drunken consent) is nullified if the person who allegedly gave that consent was in alcoholic blackout at the time and can't remember anything at all about what happened when they wake up the next morning.
> 
> The inference of this being that she must have been, and must have appeared to have been too drunk to give her consent at that time if she can't remember it.



Three points here:  first, this isn't a case of drunken consent; there's a clear distinction between drunken consent and intoxication to the extent that the victim lacks the capacity to consent (made in this case and Bree) - the Evans case falls into the latter category.

Secondly, not only do we not know whether or not the jury believed that she had purported to consent (though you seem to take the rapist's word for it), but, in any event, they concluded beyond reasonable doubt that he had no reasonable belief that she had consented.

And, thirdly, this is not a case where consent is nullified by alcohloic blackout, at all.  Rather, based upon all the evidence the jury heard, they decided beyond reasonable doubt that not only did his victim lack the capacity to consent, but also he had no reasonable belief that she had consented.  You have no grounds to assert that the fact if her alcoholic blackout was the basis for their decision making.




free spirit said:


> *Why this is a problem*
> The problem with this being that it can be nie on impossible to tell the difference between someone who is merely drunk, and someone who is in alcoholic blackout and won't remember a thing about what's happened in the morning.
> 
> The person who is in alcoholic blackout can appear to all intents and purposes just as lucid as the person who is merely drunk*, they may well be able to hold deep and meaningful conversations, walk, dance etc they're just incapable of actually laying down new memories of what is going on while they are in that state.
> ...



But that's not the issue; you've completely missed the point.  You're trying to muddy the waters with the issue of memory, but, from a legal perspective, that's not what this turns on (it's only significance is evidential).

Before you sleep with someone, you don't need to establish whether or not they'll remember it, but simply that they consent i.e. that they are not so drunk that it's obvious to you that they don't consent (as the jury found happened in this case).

Let's be very clear about this, the jury found that Evans didn't believe he was in a drunken consent situation, but that he had no reasonable belief that his victim had consented.




free spirit said:


> So her story stacks up, the footballers story potentially stacks up as well, and the 2 aren't contradictory.



Despite the fact that you believe him, the jury though that his story didn't stack up; specifically, they didn't believe that he had a reasonable belief that she'd consented.




free spirit said:


> The prosecutions version of events really doesn't, and seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of alcoholic blackouts, as the prosection should have needed to prove that the guy must have known at the time that she was incapacitated through alcohol in order for this to stick.



Christ!  That's effectively what they were required to (and did) prove.  The prosecution convinced the jury that Evans had no reasonable belief that she had consented, and clearly the the only basis upon which he could have known that she didn't consent in this case is that it must have been obvious to him that she lacked capacity as a result of intoxication.  




free spirit said:


> That's me done with this for a while at least, as A I appear to be going round in circles with this, and B I'm off to Spain for a few days, and am fucked if I'm going to waste my time over there arguing the toss about this on Urban.



You are only going around in circles because you've painted yourself into a corner, and are so determined to defend the indefensible that you keep repeating demonstrably false arguments (either willfully, or as a result of ignorance).


----------



## likesfish (Oct 23, 2014)

If it was so fucking consentul why did both the blokes get the fuck out of dodge?
 Not exactly the normal actions after a " night of mutal pleasure"


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 23, 2014)

Chip Barm said:


> Not being a football fan as such was trying to think of the other fella who assaulted a woman in a bar....Marlon King.
> 
> If he's anything to go by, Evans will play football again no question about it.



Not if any potential club's sponsors are hit with a twitter shitstorm he won't


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 23, 2014)

And when McDonald was getting the fuck out of dodge, why did he tell the receptionist to keep his eye on her because 'she is ill'?

Presumably he didn't mean she had a bit of a cold coming on.


----------



## sim667 (Oct 23, 2014)

Chip Barm said:


> Not being a football fan as such was trying to think of the other fella who assaulted a woman in a bar....Marlon King.
> 
> If he's anything to go by, Evans will play football again no question about it.



Im not a football fan either, but my interpretation of football is as a sport it will still widely accept violence/sexual assaults on women and despites its best attempts there's still a more racism than other sports...... I don't know if its just certain clubs that applies to though.... its all men kicking a pigs bladder round a field to me


----------



## bmd (Oct 23, 2014)

1927 said:


> For a forum that believes in human rights this is a very dangerous precedent to be promoting, where would you draw the line?
> 
> Can drug dealers get jobs, murderers, muggers?



Yes, yes they can. Just not one where they are a high profile role model for unrepentant rapists.


----------



## Athos (Oct 23, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Im not a football fan either, but my interpretation of football is as a sport it will still widely accept violence/sexual assaults on women and despites its best attempts there's still a more racism than other sports...... I don't know if its just certain clubs that applies to though.... its all men kicking a pigs bladder round a field to me



Some fans of some football clubs display more overt racism than most fans at other sporting events.  But I'm not sure it follows that racism is more widely accepted in football.  I wonder if there might be other factors which prevent racism being openly displayed at other sporting events.  For instance, the class difference between football and rugby crowds, and the respective differences in what they would stand to lose by openly displaying racism.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 23, 2014)

Sexism is rugby's niche.


----------



## sim667 (Oct 23, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Sexism is rugby's niche.


I think there's a difference between league and union wrt to overt sexism though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2014)

emanymton said:


> So apparent did Judy whatshernames daughter because of the comments Judy made. Which is just, well I can't think of a word for it.



Chloe Madeley.


----------



## killer b (Oct 23, 2014)

hey 1927 - now you're back on the thread, are you going to answer those questions from earlier?

here's a reminder of what you said, and what people asked.



1927 said:


> There is something about this case that doesn't ring true with me, not least the fact that it is alleged that the victim had previously made rape allegations against 2 other prominent sportsman , one a cricketer and one a rugby league player!


 


toggle said:


> and a credible source for this attack on Evans victim?


 


trashpony said:


> You fucking what?! Alleged by who?
> 
> Do you know how hard it is to get a rape conviction? Particularly when your rapist is famous. You disgust me, you rape apologist freak.


 


Athos said:


> Is there any evidence of these alleged rape allegations?


----------



## savoloysam (Oct 23, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> A footballer is a privileged position. It's high profile and players naturally become role models to kids. What's wrong with him getting a job on the bins?



If he wants too it's up to him, his choice. You could also join him. You could even apply to drive the lorry if you want.


----------



## Cribynkle (Oct 23, 2014)

savoloysam said:


> I think Sheffield United have already stated they would not offer him another contract. As i said I would be majorly surprised if any club in this country does.


Plymouth probably would, he might even eventually get the captain's gig from McCormick


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 23, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Sexism is rugby's niche.


 
By far the worst sexism I've seen at a sports ground, and I've been to quite a few, was at Lords cricket ground. Bunches of pissed up posh blokes making grunting noises at every woman passing.

Never seen anything like that at the football, or even at The Oval.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 23, 2014)

savoloysam said:


> If he wants too it's up to him, his choice. You could also join him. You could even apply to drive the lorry if you want.


I already have a job which doesn't involve being a role model to kids. However, if I landed in court (for offences far less serious than rape) and got convicted it'd be unlikely that my job would be held open for me for bringing the company name into disrepute. Perhaps the council, being an employer of women, might feel a bit nervous having a rapist on their books in Evans' case.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 23, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> Regarding his right to work...there are thousands of jobs he can do...he is not interested in those jobs, he is interested in the wealth and fame of being a footballer and imo he should be denied that job.



Yep, and his supporters should be disabused of any idea that Evans deserves anything except perhaps people spitting at him.

I fully foresee a *possible* future situation where if Evans gets back into the higher levels of professional football, he'll commit the same crime again, and where his supporters fall back on theories that the victim was a vengeful feminist out to get payback for his first offence, by fitting him up for a second.


----------



## bmd (Oct 23, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep, and his supporters should be disabused of any idea that Evans deserves anything except perhaps people spitting at him.
> 
> I fully foresee a *possible* future situation where if Evans gets back into the higher levels of professional football, he'll commit the same crime again, and where his supporters fall back on theories that the victim was a vengeful feminist out to get payback for his first offence, by fitting him up for a second.



Unfortunately for him, she bit his cock off. Women everywhere celebrate. The end.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 23, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Chloe Madeley.


That's the one.


----------



## belboid (Oct 23, 2014)

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local...ffield-united-for-rapist-ched-evans-1-6911497

I can't remember the last time I agreed with a Star editorial


----------



## toggle (Oct 23, 2014)

belboid said:


> http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local...ffield-united-for-rapist-ched-evans-1-6911497
> 
> I can't remember the last time I agreed with a Star editorial



that's a good piece.


----------



## Plumdaff (Oct 23, 2014)

1927 said:


> No one has given any evidence that consent was not given. Why shouldn't they be believed? They actually supplied the only evidence that sex took place!



I don't know why I'm surprised that you're spouting bullshit but seriously, she wakes up naked in a strange hotel room, I don't really need to go into what she might have smelt and felt from the night before, and you really think she phoned the police solely about her handbag?


----------



## Betsy (Oct 24, 2014)

Don't think these have been posted...

*BBC apologises over Michael Buerk’s comments on Ched Evans case*

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/oct/22/bbc-apologises-michael-buerk-ched-evans-radio-4

*BBC’s Michael Buerk: I was clumsy to criticise Ched Evans rape victim*

*BBC presenter Michael Buerk has said he was “clumsy” to criticise the Ched Evans rape victim for being drunk – but maintained her intoxicated state was central to the court case and “reflected on the kind of society that we are”.*

*http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/oct/23/bbc-michael-buerk-clumsy-ched-evans-rape*


----------



## killer b (Oct 24, 2014)

Pompous wanker.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 24, 2014)

Funny how _men _getting so drunk they can't remember what happened the night before doesn't reflect on the kind of society we are


----------



## Wilf (Oct 24, 2014)

weepiper said:


> Funny how _men _getting so drunk they can't remember what happened the night before doesn't reflect on the kind of society we are


 Beaten to it.  Buerk's 'apology' is nothing of the sort. He really is a shit.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 24, 2014)

A reminder of Buerk's 'opinions' (wiki):



> Buerk asserted in a _Radio Times_ interview in August 2005 that the "shift in the balance of power between the sexes" has gone too far, we need to "admit the problem", and that men are now little more than "sperm donors".[17][18] In particular, he objected to the many women now in senior positions within the BBC. Former newsreader Anna Ford commented: "He's a dear old-fashioned chauvinist of the first order."[19][20]
> The article was published in anticipation of Buerk's 45-minute TV-essay, "Michael Buerk on What Are Men For?", which was part of a series on Channel Five, _Don't Get Me Started!_ broadcast on Tuesday 23 August 2005. _Guardian_ television reviewer Sam Wollaston thought Buerk had "been thoroughly, and quite rightly, crucified" in the pre-publicity.[21] At the Hay-on-Wye literary festival earlier in the year, Buerk criticised contemporary newsreaders for being overpaid autocue-reading "lame brains."[22]
> At the end of 2012 he despaired of the state of Britain, and of the BBC. Of the Corporation's coverage of the Thames River Pageant celebrating Britain and the 60th anniversary of Queen Elizabeth II's accession to the throne, he wrote: "The Dunkirk Little Ships, the most evocative reminders of this country’s bravest hour, were ignored so that a pneumatic bird-brain from _Strictly Come Dancing_ could talk to transvestites in Battersea Park."[23][24]
> In an article for _Radio Times_ in April 2014 about 'grey power' in television he referred to presenters who had gone to employment tribunals over claims of age discrimination.[25] Several older female presenters have won cases over wrongful dismissal. Buerk wrote: "If you got the job in the first place mainly because you look nice, I can't see why you should keep it when you don't." Quoting a comment by Anne Robinson ("The viewers don’t want to watch ugly") he speculated: "She seemed to say it through gritted teeth, or at least a flawless but strangely taut face – a sign perhaps that she had taken her own advice to stop complaining and work on staying attractive."[25] He did though quote Angela Rippon who spoke positively about older people (including herself) being able to continue their careers in television.[26][27] Responding to Buerk in _The Guardian_, presenter Miriam O'Reilly, who won her case for unfair dismissal on age grounds in 2011, asserted: "The rules that apply to women in TV don't apply to men. Men can age, women can't. Women have to be attractive, men don't."[28]


----------



## Cid (Oct 24, 2014)

Did anyone listen to the moral maze?


----------



## belboid (Oct 24, 2014)

Cid said:


> Did anyone listen to the moral maze?


Not wishing to destroy my radio, or slice my ears off.....no.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 24, 2014)

Cid said:


> Did anyone listen to the moral maze?


No - I did read the live tweeting that everyday victim blaming did though: https://storify.com/EVB_Now/moralmaze-ched-evans-and-rape-apologism

Portillo said he's being punished twice by not getting his job back at SU. Cock


----------



## trashpony (Oct 24, 2014)

God Wilf - I had no idea quite how awful he was. He's another one that the BBC should get rid of. Why the fuck am I paying his or Mike Read's salary?


----------



## The Pale King (Oct 24, 2014)

Wilf said:


> A reminder of Buerk's 'opinions' (wiki):


 
Cheers for posting that up - Buerk's got a rap sheet as lang's my airm for this sort of shite.

This telegraph interview:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/3646058/What-I-meant-to-say-was....html

...ties his hostility and belittling of women to his having been brought up by a single mother. A flavour:

*"*Michael Buerk, suddenly in the front line of the sex war after taking on the 'femocracy', was brought up by his mother alone. He tells Olga Craig how far this has shaped his views...
"What I am saying is that it is women who set the agenda. OK, they don't have the commanding lights in politics or business - but to some extent they do in the media, where the agenda is set, if not run, by women, for women...
"One successful businessman said to me recently of women: 'They are not in my boardroom, but they have our nuts in the wringer.' Women are setting the agenda, even if they are not running things."

...Bloody femocracy setting the agenda again


----------



## trashpony (Oct 24, 2014)

Yeah, women really are running business. That's why we regularly get paid less for doing the same job. Cunning


----------



## articul8 (Oct 24, 2014)

Somebody should put his nuts in a wringer for talking such shite


----------



## Cid (Oct 24, 2014)

trashpony said:


> No - I did read the live tweeting that everyday victim blaming did though: https://storify.com/EVB_Now/moralmaze-ched-evans-and-rape-apologism
> 
> Portillo said he's being punished twice by not getting his job back at SU. Cock



Ugh... glad I passed. Few programmes are worse for making you want to smash audio equipment. Buerk needs decommissioning.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 24, 2014)

Buerk by name, cunt by nature.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 24, 2014)

As well as being deeply unpleasant twats, the Moral Maze is pretty much a vulture ready to exploit whatever tale of human unhappiness is in the news that week.  A truly horrible combination of bigotry, class prejudice and pomposity.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 24, 2014)

and mel philips


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2014)

Wilf said:


> As well as being deeply unpleasant twats, the Moral Maze is pretty much a vulture ready to exploit whatever tale of human unhappiness is in the news that week.  A truly horrible combination of bigotry, class prejudice and pomposity.


and dull withal.


----------



## nogojones (Oct 24, 2014)

Cid said:


> Did anyone listen to the moral maze?


 Just what sort of people do you think we are?


----------



## andysays (Oct 24, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> and mel philips



Pretty sure she's already been comprehensively included in the reference to


> bigotry, class prejudice and pomposity


----------



## Cid (Oct 24, 2014)

I met her once. Or at least I was in the vicinity of her. Wedding of two of my best mates though, so was on good behaviour.


----------



## Wookey (Oct 24, 2014)

Enlightening thread!!


----------



## bmd (Oct 24, 2014)

nogojones said:


> Just what sort of people do you think we are?



I did. It was terrible. Really awful.



Wookey said:


> Enlightening thread!!



In what way?


----------



## Wookey (Oct 24, 2014)

Several ways bmd really - I knew that MBuerk was a regressive fool, but didn't quite realise how bad he was, nor that he had a little coterie of like-minded fools to talk to, makes me shudder.

Also, I really appreciated the link to the Editors piece from the Star, which put my own thoughts into perspective. I think the footballer's PR machine has gone into overdrive, and I feel very bad for the person he raped. I hope he isn't rehabilitated in the way he clearly wishes to be. The enlightenment comes from feeling a lot clearer about my own opinions, praise be! lol


----------



## likesfish (Oct 25, 2014)

I might have some sympathy for ched if he admitted what he did was rape.
 But I guess admitting your actually a rapist is probably harder than the jail term


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 25, 2014)

The deluded cunt's writing a book to be published once his conviction is overturned.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 25, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The deluded cunt's writing a book to be published once his conviction is overturned.



How I Would Have Dunnit if she Hadn't Consented.


----------



## Kalfindin (Oct 26, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So he's coming out this week, having served half his sentence for rape.
> 
> Judy Finnigan has declared that his rape was not as bad as other rapes
> 
> ...






Its a new meaning in terms of rape, he picked up a woman too drunk to stand up, the court ruled she was too drunk to give consent, she never refused consent.

Legally now any woman who is drunk who goes to bed with a guy without stating consent could file a complaint the next day that she has been raped, as she was too drunk to give consent, if someone falls asleep during sex because they are drunk and never specifically gave consent, that too is now rape. Which is what Evens got 5 years for.

That's what the case means.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Its a new meaning in terms of rape, he picked up a woman too drunk to stand up, the court ruled she was too drunk to give consent, she never refused consent.
> 
> Legally now any woman who is drunk who goes to bed with a guy without stating consent could file a complaint the next day that she has been raped, as she was too drunk to give consent, if someone falls asleep during sex because they are drunk and never specifically gave consent, that too is now rape. Which is what Evens got 5 years for.
> 
> That's what the case means.


We done kal. 

You fucking cock.


----------



## Kalfindin (Oct 26, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> It's someone's human right to be a footballer? Get tae fuck.




Its someone's human right to earn a living in their profession after serving a sentence, obviously specific jobs are excluded for certain crimes, sportsman is not.


----------



## Kalfindin (Oct 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> We done kal.
> 
> You fucking cock.




Its called legality as opposed to being over emotional like yourself, dealing with the reality of the legal situation.


----------



## andysays (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Its a new meaning in terms of rape, he picked up a woman too drunk to stand up, the court ruled she was too drunk to give consent, she never refused consent.
> 
> Legally now any woman who is drunk who goes to bed with a guy without stating consent could file a complaint the next day that she has been raped, as she was too drunk to give consent, if someone falls asleep during sex because they are drunk and never specifically gave consent, that too is now rape. Which is what Evens got 5 years for.
> 
> That's what the case means.



And Re Rewind...


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Its someone's human right to earn a living in their profession after serving a sentence, obviously specific jobs are excluded for certain crimes, sportsman is not.


Do you think Sheffield United's sponsors would agree with a daft cunt like you?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Its called legality as opposed to being over emotional like yourself, dealing with the reality of the legal situation.


It's almost like there hasn't been a long thread discussing the issues.

You fucking cock.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Its a new meaning in terms of rape, he picked up a woman too drunk to stand up, the court ruled she was too drunk to give consent, she never refused consent.
> 
> Legally now any woman who is drunk who goes to bed with a guy without stating consent could file a complaint the next day that she has been raped, as she was too drunk to give consent, if someone falls asleep during sex because they are drunk and never specifically gave consent, that too is now rape. Which is what Evens got 5 years for.
> 
> That's what the case means.



Fuck off.

(Oh, I see you've shown conspiraloon tendencies too)


----------



## killer b (Oct 26, 2014)

Jesus Christ


----------



## killer b (Oct 26, 2014)

Also  and , though


----------



## Kalfindin (Oct 26, 2014)

stethoscope said:


> Fuck off.
> 
> (Oh, I see you've shown conspiraloon tendencies too)



This site seems to be full of frustrated passive aggressive types, who shit themselves in real life, Not the greatest reply is it.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> This site seems to be full of frustrated passive aggressive types, who shit themselves in real life, Not the greatest reply is it.


Hello i'm kal. I'm fucking rock in real life. Rock.


----------



## Kalfindin (Oct 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> It's almost like there hasn't been a long thread discussing the issues.
> 
> You fucking cock.




You fucking loser, in your fucking bedsit in Tulse Hill, anorak wearing cunt.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 26, 2014)

Just urgh, what a revolting specimen.


----------



## killer b (Oct 26, 2014)

I don't see that much passivity in the replies, kal.


----------



## bmd (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> This site seems to be full of frustrated passive aggressive types, who shit themselves in real life, Not the greatest reply is it.



Really? Shit themselves irl. 

You've made me smile. Thanks. 

Seriously though, have a read of the thread.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> You fucking loser, in your fucking bedsit in Tulse Hill, anorak wearing cunt.



'not the greatest reply'... you were saying?!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2014)

_I'm ROCK!!!!!! In real life._


----------



## binka (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> he picked up a woman


if you think what evan's did is 'picking up a woman' then quite frankly you're a cunt and probably a dangerous one


----------



## toggle (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> This site seems to be full of frustrated passive aggressive types, who shit themselves in real life, Not the greatest reply is it.



it's how people tend to respond to ignorant fuckwits who spout off rape apologist shit


----------



## Kalfindin (Oct 26, 2014)

binka said:


> if you think what evan's did is 'picking up a woman' then quite frankly you're a cunt and probably a dangerous one




Here is a video of her willingly going into the hotel room with them, whos the cunt ? After the arrest she stated on facebook she was going to buy a pink mini car with her compensation. I prefer to deal in facts.

http://www.chedevans.com/judge-for-yourself


----------



## bmd (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Here is a video of her willingly going into the hotel room with them, whos the cunt ?
> 
> http://www.chedevans.com/judge-for-yourself



Judge for yourself! 

What does that video tell you Kalfindin R.A.?


----------



## Kalfindin (Oct 26, 2014)

bmd said:


> Judge for yourself!
> 
> What does that video tell you Kalfindin R.A.?




It was stated in court she was too drunk to stand up, obviously not true. She went willingly to a hotel room at 3am with two strangers, had sex and fell asleep during it, that's the reality. You call that rape ?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2014)

I thought FS was having a corporate jaunt and was too busy to do RA properly? Has he taken on an intern?


----------



## binka (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Here is a video of her willingly going into the hotel room with them


no it shows her willingly going into the hotel with mcdonald. i don't see evans anywhere on that video. presumably he sneaks in later like the predatory rapist he is.


----------



## bmd (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> It was stated in court she was too drunk to stand up, obviously not true. She went willingly to a hotel room at 3am with two strangers, had sex and fell asleep during it, that's the reality. You call that rape ?



All your questions have already been answered on this thread. Talking to yet another bloke who thinks his Saturday night fun has been curtailed because some woman didn't like it up her isn't my idea of a fun Sunday.


----------



## Kalfindin (Oct 26, 2014)

binka said:


> no it shows her willingly going into the hotel with mcdonald. i don't see evans anywhere on that video. presumably he sneaks in later like the predatory rapist he is.




Your point is what ? Its already established it was not a forced rape, she fell asleep during sex, she cant remember if she gave consent, that's established in court. It cant be established if Evens had sex against her consent, as there is no evidence, she cant remember the incident, so its an unsafe conviction.

That's the rational point of view.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Your point is what ? Its already established it was not a forced rape, she fell asleep during sex, she cant remember if she gave consent, that's established in court. It cant be established if Evens had sex against her consent, as there is no evidence, she cant remember the incident, so its an unsafe conviction.
> 
> That's the rational point of view.


No, you're the only unsafe thing here this morning. You dodgy dodgy creep.


----------



## seventh bullet (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Your point is what ? Its already established it was not a forced rape, she fell asleep during sex, she cant remember if she gave consent, that's established in court. It cant be established if Evens had sex against her consent, as there is no evidence, she cant remember the incident, so its an unsafe conviction.
> 
> That's the rational point of view.



wtf.


----------



## binka (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Your point is what ?


my point is that you're a liar. you said the video shows her willingly going into the hotel room with 'them' - it doesn't


----------



## Kalfindin (Oct 26, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> wtf.




Save your fake shock and disbelief for your posh friends.


----------



## bmd (Oct 26, 2014)

We need to work out shift patterns and standard replies. Would make it more simple to deal with each rape apologist.


----------



## Kalfindin (Oct 26, 2014)

binka said:


> my point is that you're a liar. you said the video shows her willingly going into the hotel room with 'them' - it doesn't




It shows her walking willingly to the room, you and others on here lied claiming she had been virtually dragged off the streets.


----------



## Kalfindin (Oct 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No, you're the only unsafe thing here this morning. You dodgy dodgy creep.



Bedsit man of action, failure, you don't even have the courage to drink yourself to death, all you do is live on here posting your bitch comments sadman.


----------



## binka (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> It shows her walking willingly to the room, you and others on here lied claiming she had been virtually dragged off the streets.


so you agree it doesn't show her walking to the hotel room with evans? why did you feel the need to lie about that?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 26, 2014)




----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Bedsit man of action, failure, you don't even have the courage to drink yourself to death, all you do is live on here posting your bitch comments sadman.


----------



## seventh bullet (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Save your fake shock and disbelief for your posh friends.



You're as accurate as your knowledge of what rape is.


----------



## bmd (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> It shows her walking willingly to the room, you and others on here lied claiming she had been virtually dragged off the streets.



Good point! Once you've walked willingly somewhere then you're consenting to rape.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Bedsit man of action, failure, you don't even have the courage to drink yourself to death, all you do is live on here posting your bitch comments sadman.



Fucking hell.


----------



## Looby (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Bedsit man of action, failure, you don't even have the courage to drink yourself to death, all you do is live on here posting your bitch comments sadman.



So which sad cunt that can't keep away are you then?


----------



## andysays (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Bedsit man of action, failure, you don't even have the courage to drink yourself to death, all you do is live on here posting your bitch comments sadman.



I've now reported this post and cited various others as well.


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Here is a video of her willingly going into the hotel room with them, whos the cunt ? After the arrest she stated on facebook she was going to buy a pink mini car with her compensation. I prefer to deal in facts.
> 
> http://www.chedevans.com/judge-for-yourself



Omg we have a live one 

Facts from a website set up by the rapist g/f's family

Are your parents siblings..


----------



## toggle (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Your point is what ? Its already established it was not a forced rape, she fell asleep during sex, she cant remember if she gave consent, that's established in court. It cant be established if Evens had sex against her consent, as there is no evidence, she cant remember the incident, so its an unsafe conviction.
> 
> That's the rational point of view.



ok, since you are prepared to ignore the actual known facts in this case, i will as well and just deal with this story you've concocted


the definition of rape does not require forcibly overcoming resistance. it is having sex with someone who dosen't consent. a woman who is unconcious at the time cannot be consenting to sex. therefore the situation you describe in your concocted little story is far easier to define as rape than the actual facts of the case.


----------



## Kalfindin (Oct 26, 2014)

sparklefish said:


> So which sad cunt that can't keep away are you then?




I come on here once in a blue moon, to laugh at the social workers, ex teachers and all you other social failures, its comedy gold.  All projecting some vision of a politically correct social utopia, to make up for your personal failures. You guys just don't get it.


----------



## Kalfindin (Oct 26, 2014)

toggle said:


> ok, since you are prepared to ignore the actual known facts in this case, i will as well and just deal with this story you've concocted
> 
> 
> the definition of rape does not require forcibly overcoming resistance. it is having sex with someone who dosen't consent. a woman who is unconcious at the time cannot be consenting to sex. therefore the situation you describe in your concocted little story is far easier to define as rape than the actual facts of the case.




Wrong, legally if too drunk to give consent, they does not legally equate to rape, Evens will win his appeal. She cannot remember the incident, ergo its an unsafe conviction.

Its not about if Evens is a cunt or not, its about the law.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> I come on here once in a blue moon, to laugh at the social workers, ex teachers and all you other social failures, its comedy gold.  All projecting some vision of a politically correct social utopia, to make up for your personal failures. You guys just don't get it.


_You guys. _

_You guys._

Proper rock.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Wrong, legally if too drunk to give consent, they does not legally equate to rape, Evens will win his appeal.


And you will carry on with your raping.


----------



## binka (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> politically correct social utopia


you can't even rape someone anymore, it's political correctness gone mad!!!


----------



## toggle (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Wrong, legally if too drunk to give consent, they does not legally equate to rape, Evens will win his appeal.



so you admit there was no consent?


----------



## Looby (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> I come on here once in a blue moon, to laugh at the social workers, ex teachers and all you other social failures, its comedy gold.  All projecting some vision of a politically correct social utopia, to make up for your personal failures. You guys just don't get it.



You've been registered since July. Who were you before that? Us social failures might remember you, we could welcome you properly.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 26, 2014)

seventh bullet said:


> wtf.


We've had some misogynistic crap posted on here recently but I think this might be the worst, bit worrying that this prick is walking around out there.


----------



## Kalfindin (Oct 26, 2014)

toggle said:


> so you admit there was no consent?




None of us know, nor does the victim, hence its an unsafe conviction. The victim cannt even remember the event.


----------



## Kalfindin (Oct 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> And you will carry on with your raping.




Why not try being logical for once in your life ?


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 26, 2014)

So kal is here to defend the idea that if a women falls asleep, it ok to engage in sex with her 

Sounds like a lovely example of the human race


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2014)

sparklefish said:


> You've been registered since July. Who were you before that? Us social failures might remember you, we could welcome you properly.


He was mostly posting anti-jew stuff in politics before. Oh yeah, and being a proper fairground attraction hardman.


----------



## Looby (Oct 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He was mostly posting anti-jew stuff in politics before.



Nice.


----------



## binka (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> None of us know, nor does the victim, hence its an unsafe conviction.


why did you lie about what the video showed?


----------



## toggle (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> None of us know, nor does the victim, hence its an unsafe conviction.



you've just claimed she was unconcious at the time.

how can someone consent if they are unconcious?


----------



## killer b (Oct 26, 2014)

I reckon we've all got better things to do today, eh?


----------



## Looby (Oct 26, 2014)

Ax^ said:


> So kal is here to defend the idea that if a women falls asleep, it ok to engage in sex with her
> 
> Sounds like a lovely example of the human race



It's just poor sexual etiquette.


----------



## Kalfindin (Oct 26, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He was mostly posting anti-jew stuff in politics before. Oh yeah, and being a proper fairground attraction hardman.



Lies, but that's your calibre.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2014)

sparklefish said:


> Nice.


He scarpered because FM was about to ban him for being a wrong 'un. Now he's back. For a bit.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2014)

killer b said:


> I reckon we've all got better things to do today, eh?


Nope - tesco/football/poss bit of door knocking later. That's pretty much it.


----------



## killer b (Oct 26, 2014)

he's done anyway.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 26, 2014)

Banned for being a wrong 'un. (Actually a returner too.)


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> I come on here once in a blue moon, to laugh at the social workers, ex teachers and all you other social failures, its comedy gold.  All projecting some vision of a politically correct social utopia, to make up for your personal failures. You guys just don't get it.



I'd have thought that defending rape is more of a social failure than having a job  helping people.


----------



## binka (Oct 26, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Banned for being a wrong 'un. (Actually a returner too.)


can you tell us who he was?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 26, 2014)

binka said:


> can you tell us who he was?


Actually it's a bit confusing - it was matched to a comedy troll account from years ago which was obviously somebody from here at one point (it was taking the piss out of an urbanite, there were a series of them) but I can't remember who if it was ever known, it was so far back.

It stops mattering after a while - the above was obviously by a returner and they were being a trolling twat in any case.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 26, 2014)

binka said:


> can you tell us who he was?


yes. but then he'd have to kill you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Its a new meaning in terms of rape, he picked up a woman too drunk to stand up, the court ruled she was too drunk to give consent, she never refused consent.



1) There is no "new meaning". All there is, is explication of original legislation.
2) The fact that she didn't refuse consent is irrelevant in law. It's *not* incumbent on women to refuse consent.
3) Evans didn't "pick up" the victim. He turned up at his mate's hotel room and raped a woman who was unconscious.



> Legally now any woman who is drunk who goes to bed with a guy without stating consent could file a complaint the next day that she has been raped, as she was too drunk to give consent, if someone falls asleep during sex because they are drunk and never specifically gave consent, that too is now rape. Which is what Evens got 5 years for.
> 
> That's what the case means.



Only in your fevered brain, and the brains of other apologists for Evans's rapery.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Its someone's human right to earn a living in their profession after serving a sentence, obviously specific jobs are excluded for certain crimes, sportsman is not.



Actually, there's no specific human right to "earn a living in their profession", and even the right to earn a living full-stop is vague.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> Its called legality as opposed to being over emotional like yourself, dealing with the reality of the legal situation.



Which you're not. You're retailing bullshit you've read that was written by Evans' supporters.
"Legality" my arse.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> You fucking loser, in your fucking bedsit in Tulse Hill, anorak wearing cunt.



You're about 120 miles, an anorak, a loser and a cunt out, apart from that you're absolutely correct.


----------



## andysays (Oct 26, 2014)

binka said:


> can you tell us who he was?



Does it matter?

Not only was he an abusive rape apologist cunt, but he clearly HADN'T READ ALL THE FUCKING THREAD BEFORE COMMENTING!!!1!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2014)

binka said:


> so you agree it doesn't show her walking to the hotel room with evans? why did you feel the need to lie about that?



Because he's exactly what he's accused others of being: A passive-aggressive, bedsit-dwelling masturbation artist who talks out of his arse.
And because he's a rape-apologist cunt.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 26, 2014)

I dont expect anyone to be able to answer this but what sort of person thinks that continuing to have sex with someone who has passed out is ok?
He really did defend the rapist footballer by saying he only continued to have sex with her after she fell asleep didnt he?
I dread my daughters meeting an animal like him


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 26, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because he's exactly what he's accused others of being: A passive-aggressive, bedsit-dwelling masturbation artist who talks out of his arse.
> And because he's a rape-apologist cunt.


 There you go again with you pc crap


----------



## binka (Oct 26, 2014)

andysays said:


> Does it matter?


well it's not quite a life or death situation


----------



## toggle (Oct 26, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> I dont expect anyone to be able to answer this but what sort of person thinks that continuing to have sex with someone who has passed out is ok?
> He really did defend the rapist footballer by saying he only continued to have sex with her after she fell asleep didnt he?
> I dread my daughters meeting an animal like him



actually, i don't think he ever stated whether, in his fantasy,  she was conscious when evans started. 

it's an unfortunately common view though. that proper rape requires the victim to have clearly indicated they don't consent and have fought back against a violent attack. they really don't understand that consent isn't just a lack of sufficient resistance.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 26, 2014)

This thread has reminded me of something that happened years ago. I was very drunk after an evening out with friends and a friend of a friend took me back to my flat. I remember being a bit flirty with him (because I did quite fancy him) but I really don't remember anything from the point we got home. When I woke up, my first thought was 'oh god, I bet L and I have had sex and I really didn't want to' and I was so, so relieved to find that he hadn't 'taken advantage' of me. He had instead put me to bed, fully clothed and gone home.

How fucked up is that? To be so grateful that my friend didn't rape me? I'm fairly most men wouldn't, but my expectation was that he would. I think this thread demonstrates the importance of consent in spades. There are a lot of men who don't seem to understand that asking a drunk woman for *overt consent *is absolutely crucial. I really don't see why that's so difficult. Unless of course you want to fuck her whether she really wants to or not.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 26, 2014)

Kalfindin said:


> It was stated in court she was too drunk to stand up, obviously not true. She went willingly to a hotel room at 3am with two strangers, had sex and fell asleep during it, that's the reality. You call that rape ?


She went with one and he didn't get sent down for rape. Why are you lying?


----------



## bmd (Oct 26, 2014)

trashpony said:


> This thread has reminded me of something that happened years ago. I was very drunk after an evening out with friends and a friend of a friend took me back to my flat. I remember being a bit flirty with him (because I did quite fancy him) but I really don't remember anything from the point we got home. When I woke up, my first thought was 'oh god, I bet L and I have had sex and I really didn't want to' and I was so, so relieved to find that he hadn't 'taken advantage' of me. He had instead put me to bed, fully clothed and gone home.
> 
> How fucked up is that? To be so grateful that my friend didn't rape me? I'm fairly most men wouldn't, but my expectation was that he would. I think this thread demonstrates the importance of consent in spades. There are a lot of men who don't seem to understand that asking a drunk woman for *overt consent *is absolutely crucial. I really don't see why that's so difficult. Unless of course you want to fuck her whether she really wants to or not.



I think what all the rapey cunts are trying to say, which I didn't get until now so apologies if everyone else got this right from the start, is that she gave consent and then withdrew it days later. This is making them all tremble because they're scared that the drunken woman from a few years ago that woke up to find they'd had sex with them is finally going to have some way to take them to court.


----------



## toggle (Oct 26, 2014)

bmd said:


> I think what all the rapey cunts are trying to say, which I didn't get until now so apologies if everyone else got this right from the start, is that she gave consent and then withdrew it days later. This is making them all tremble because they're scared that the drunken woman from a few years ago that woke up to find they'd had sex with them is finally going to have some way to take them to court.



don't forget that there's a fair few who really do believe that the easiest route to getting laid is finding someone too drunk to say no.


----------



## bmd (Oct 26, 2014)

toggle said:


> don't forget that there's a fair few who really do believe that the easiest route to getting laid is finding someone too drunk to say no.



And that is the truly depressing thing about this. I feel that the blokes who are shouting the loudest about this have a night or more of this kind of behaviour in their past.


----------



## toggle (Oct 26, 2014)

bmd said:


> And that is the truly depressing thing about this. I feel that the blokes who are shouting the loudest about this have a night or more of this kind of behaviour in their past.



and don't see any difference between two equally drunk people sort of falling into the same bed and them deliberately targeting the drunk woman of their choice.


----------



## bmd (Oct 26, 2014)

toggle said:


> and don't see any difference between two equally drunk people sort of falling into the same bed and them deliberately targeting the drunk woman of their choice.



That's the thing: they have abdicated all responsibility for their actions to the woman.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2014)

trashpony said:


> This thread has reminded me of something that happened years ago. I was very drunk after an evening out with friends and a friend of a friend took me back to my flat. I remember being a bit flirty with him (because I did quite fancy him) but I really don't remember anything from the point we got home. When I woke up, my first thought was 'oh god, I bet L and I have had sex and I really didn't want to' and I was so, so relieved to find that he hadn't 'taken advantage' of me. He had instead put me to bed, fully clothed and gone home.
> 
> How fucked up is that? To be so grateful that my friend didn't rape me? I'm fairly most men wouldn't, but my expectation was that he would. I think this thread demonstrates the importance of consent in spades. There are a lot of men who don't seem to understand that asking a drunk woman for *overt consent *is absolutely crucial. I really don't see why that's so difficult. Unless of course you want to fuck her whether she really wants to or not.



From my own perspective, I can't understand (or stomach) why anyone would want to have sex with a semi-or unconscious woman. Back when I was 21 I took a friend (a woman I'd known since I was 15) to a party. When I took her home (to her place), very drunk, at about 3.30AM, she came on to me very strongly, and got quite tearful when I rebuffed her. I ended up spending a couple of hours sitting next to her on her sofa, stroking her hair while she dozed off some of the Captain Morgan she'd drunk, then fell asleep. In the morning (well, mid-morning!) she actually expressed much the same gratitude you felt, which absolutely horrified me - I'd never actually considered prior to that, that some blokes might take advantage of a woman who was too drunk to say no, and I wasn't exactly one of G-d's innocents.
It really jarred me, and made me realise that rape isn't just the stranger in the alley or dark space, or the friend or family member in your own home, it's about opportunism and what people think they can get away with too, and what she (and so many other women) appeared to have internalised about what constituted rape too - that it wasn't some bloke taking advantage when you're both drunk, or emotionally-manipulating you into sex, but was only someone violently forcing themselves on you, and leaving bruises to prove it.


----------



## toggle (Oct 27, 2014)

bmd said:


> That's the thing: they have abdicated all responsibility for their actions to the woman.



and they genuinely believe that not only is that acceptable, but that all men either do act like that, or want to.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 27, 2014)

toggle said:


> and they genuinely believe that not only is that acceptable, but that all men either do act like that, or want to.


There's been quite a bit of that on this thread


----------



## toggle (Oct 27, 2014)

trashpony said:


> There's been quite a bit of that on this thread



i should probably spell this out, not cause you need to be told, but cause this isn't said enough. 

it is often said that feminists think all men are rapists. we don't. but there is one group of people who think all men are rapists. and that's rapists. men who rape think that is a normal way to behave. they think that the only men who don'[t are those who are too scared to act like normal men. hence the abuse thrown from the MRA camps at male feminists.


----------



## Cribynkle (Oct 27, 2014)

My cousin once woke up a mutual schoolfriend's house after a night out to find friend of friend sexually assaulting her. I'd previously slept in a room with the same bloke after a drunken night out and have no idea whether he did anything to me. My school friend is still mates with this bloke and doesn't understand why we won't have anything to do with them anymore and why we wouldn't go to her wedding because he was going to be there.


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2014)

Cribynkle said:


> My school friend is still mates with this bloke and doesn't understand why we won't have anything to do with them anymore and why we wouldn't go to her wedding because he was going to be there.


This is fairly standard, if depressing. All in the name of 'not wanting to take sides', no doubt.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 27, 2014)

I wonder if the MRA supporters are pro this kind of thing? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-29716923


----------



## Cribynkle (Oct 27, 2014)

killer b said:


> This is fairly standard, if depressing. All in the name of 'not wanting to take sides', no doubt.



Yup, but by not taking sides they actually took his side and it's ruined our friendship. It's just so depressing that this person who I always thought was so sound (and who works in social care) could be so accepting of his behaviour


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2014)

One of the things that's been making me cross about this thread: in common with many people, a large proportion of my female friends have been raped or seriously sexually assaulted, all of them have been groped, harassed and abused because they're women. None of them - not one - has seen any kind of justice, and only one of them even went to the police. I know this to be completely normal.

And yet, here we are after 30 pages, and some dickheads' priority is still protecting the men - suggesting that because in some outlandish circumstance that exists only in their mind someone might be wrongfully convicted for rape, then a law that could actually see some women see some justice should be scrapped. Fuck that. You need to look at your priorities.


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2014)

Cribynkle said:


> Yup, but by not taking sides they actually took his side and it's ruined our friendship. It's just so depressing that this person who I always thought was so sound (and who works in social care) could be so accepting of his behaviour


yes, absolutely, I had something similar happen to me (the guy in question actually tried to add me on facebook the other week, as if the intervening 15 years might have made me forget that time he sexually assaulted my girlfriend). there's no fence with this stuff. But that's how it goes.


----------



## toggle (Oct 27, 2014)

killer b said:


> yes, absolutely, I had something similar happen to me (the guy in question actually tried to add me on facebook the other week, as if the intervening 15 years might have made me forget that time he sexually assaulted my girlfriend). there's no fence with this stuff. But that's how it goes.



forget what? he won't believe there is any problem, because he won't believe he did anything wrong.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 27, 2014)

trashpony said:


> I wonder if the MRA supporters are pro this kind of thing? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-29716923




One positive thing in this sea of shit, stories such as this where action is taken are becoming a tad more common. Perhaps things are moving, like a glacier, but moving all the same.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 27, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> One positive thing in this sea of shit, stories such as this where action is taken are becoming a tad more common. Perhaps things are moving, like a glacier, but moving all the same.


I bloody hope so because in the 30 odd years I've called myself a feminist, it feels like we've taken 3 steps forwards and 4 back


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2014)

trashpony said:


> I bloody hope so because in the 30 odd years I've called myself a feminist, it feels like we've taken 3 steps forwards and 4 back


It is rather depressing sometimes, isn't it


----------



## likesfish (Oct 27, 2014)

Staggering into a hotel room with some girl i managed to pick up in ayia napa she practcally paased out so that was the end of the night

Yes i was pissed off but even a 20 year old squaddie could figure out a girl whose asleep isnt gagging for sex
 Though appramtly its not a universal thing


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2014)

Looks like some of the anti-rape campaigns have a long way to go...







From: http://www.wecanstopit.co.uk/


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 27, 2014)

^^^
 That's not real is it?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 27, 2014)

killer b said:


> One of the things that's been making me cross about this thread: in common with many people, a large proportion of my female friends have been raped or seriously sexually assaulted, all of them have been groped, harassed and abused because they're women. None of them - not one - has seen any kind of justice, and only one of them even went to the police. I know this to be completely normal.
> 
> And yet, here we are after 30 pages, and some dickheads' priority is still protecting the men - suggesting that because in some outlandish circumstance that exists only in their mind someone might be wrongfully convicted for rape, then a law that could actually see some women see some justice should be scrapped. Fuck that. You need to look at your priorities.


What's even more depressing is that attitudes don't seem to be changing. In fact I think they've got worse. Recently, I was talking to some 13-14 year old girls about a horrific incident involving sexual exploitation of another girl by some boys, and was shocked to hear them defend the boys and criticise the girl. I was shocked. Why is it getting worse?


----------



## toggle (Oct 27, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> What's even more depressing is that attitudes don't seem to be changing. In fact I think they've got worse. Recently, I was talking to some 13-14 year old girls about a horrific incident involving sexual exploitation of another girl by some boys, and was shocked to hear them defend the boys and criticise the girl. I was shocked. Why is it getting worse?



because even if they haven't been indoctrinated with the idea that abuse is the victim's fault, then none of them want to stick a 'me next' label on themselves


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2014)

Is it getting worse? That's a grim story and I've heard similar, but I'd expect those sorts of views have always been there, if not perhaps discussed as much. Also, kids are fucking idiots who don't know shit.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 27, 2014)

killer b said:


> Is it getting worse? That's a grim story and I've heard similar, but I'd expect those sorts of views have always been there, if not perhaps discussed as much. Also, kids are fucking idiots who don't know shit.


I don't remember thinking that as a kid. But I wasn't exposed to sex as much as kids are these days.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 27, 2014)

It's hard to say without pretty wide experience. I didn't hear about that sort of thing as a kid but then I'd be shocked if it was common now in the small town rural grammar school I went to.


----------



## spanglechick (Oct 27, 2014)

a lot of the discussion here is built on a fundamental acceptance that promiscuity in women and girls is ok.  In my experience, young people are overwhelmingly unwilling to accept that.


----------



## seventh bullet (Oct 27, 2014)

killer b said:


> Also, kids are fucking idiots who don't know shit.



Yeah, I didn't know what rape really was as a kid.  It wasn't until I was older (and angrier) that I understood what had happened to me.


----------



## killer b (Oct 27, 2014)

IME kids tend to be quite reactionary. Takes growing up a bit to put a lot of things into context.


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> a lot of the discussion here is built on a fundamental acceptance that promiscuity in women and girls is ok.  In my experience, young people are overwhelmingly unwilling to accept that.



I think 'promiscuity' is an interesting word.  It means indiscriminateness.  I wonder whether that contributes to the idea that women who have a number of partners are willing to sleep with anyone i.e. that it's not really rape if she's a slag, 'cos she's bound to be up for it, no matter if she's asleep/drunk/objecting.  And you don't really hear of men being described as promiscuous. I think there must be a better, less morally-loaded, word for women who choose to enjoy sex with a number of different men.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 27, 2014)

Athos said:


> I think there must be a better, less morally-loaded, word for women who choose to enjoy sex with a number of different men.


There isn't. Women aren't allowed to choose to enjoy sex with a number of different men. It's just not something 'society' recognises as possible without moral judgement.


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2014)

weepiper said:


> There isn't. Women aren't allowed to choose to enjoy sex with a number of different men. It's just not something 'society' recognises as possible without moral judgement.



It's a chicken and egg, I suppose; does language shape our perceptions, or is it merely a reflection of them, or a bit of both?  Perhaps if enough people begin to speak positively about female sexuality, then there might be a gradual shift, which could gather some momentum.


----------



## toggle (Oct 27, 2014)

Athos said:


> It's a chicken and egg, I suppose; does language shape our perceptions, or is it merely a reflection of them, or a bit of both?  Perhaps if enough people begin to speak positively about female sexuality, then there might be a gradual shift, which could gather some momentum.



the problem we have now is that there is an acceptance of female sexuality that is male controlled, but far less acceptance if the woman herself is in control. i mentioned in the gamergate thread, that the mere idea that a game designer had a relationship with someone who might have been able to help her career was enough to spark off all this shit, wow a woman had sex, hold the front page. but when major developers hired escorts to work company parties, that wasnt seen as problematic.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 27, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> ^^^
> That's not real is it?


It is - it's from the latest campaign being run by Police Scotland. Whilst all the different pictures say sodding obvious things, it's also a little scary that these things still need saying. Here's a few more:
















They're also addressing male rape, which I think it quite forward thinking for a campaign like this.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 28, 2014)

Christ. I'm not the most PC bloke in the world but am shocked this needs spelling out.


----------



## toggle (Oct 28, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Christ. I'm not the most PC bloke in the world but am shocked this needs spelling out.



when you've dealt with a bloke whose pick up line is 

that's my gf you met earlier, the one with the baby. she gets really jealous of me talking to anyone. can we go back to yours tonight?

 and actually gets all confused that it wasn't effective, then comes a realization that some men really are complete fucking idiots.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 28, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Christ. I'm not the most PC bloke in the world but am shocked this needs spelling out.


I don't think it's about being PC though. I think it's more about viewing women as equals and less about seeing them as a possession or something you're entitled to.


----------



## andysays (Oct 28, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> I don't think it's about being PC though. I think it's more about viewing women as equals and less about seeing them as a possession or something you're entitled to.



This is absolutely what it's about, but given the context of this thread and what we all unfortunately know about how some men still think of women, the campaign you've highlighted seems both necessary and aimed at the right people in the right way - ie targeting problem men and using the idea that most men don't view women as a possession or something you're entitled to.

It actually seems to reflect (not perfectly, but to some extent) what toggle was saying above


toggle said:


> i should probably spell this out, not cause you need to be told, but cause this isn't said enough.
> 
> it is often said that feminists think all men are rapists. we don't. but there is one group of people who think all men are rapists. and that's rapists. men who rape think that is a normal way to behave. they think that the only men who don't are those who are too scared to act like normal men. hence the abuse thrown from the MRA camps at male feminists.



The campaign seems to be challenging the idea that all/normal/real men behave like that, which is an important message to get across. Whether it will actually be effective is another question.


----------



## Cribynkle (Oct 28, 2014)

trashpony said:


> I bloody hope so because in the 30 odd years I've called myself a feminist, it feels like we've taken 3 steps forwards and 4 back


It feels like that to me too, like there's more emphasis on the need for women to be sexually attractive and available than when I was growing up 20 years ago. And even if that's not actually the case, the situation certainly hasn't progressed in that time.


----------



## Looby (Oct 28, 2014)

weepiper said:


> There isn't. Women aren't allowed to choose to enjoy sex with a number of different men. It's just not something 'society' recognises as possible without moral judgement.



I've posted about this before but a few months ago I ended up having a bit of a barney with someone about this. He's mates with my friend's boyfriend so I see him occasionally. 

He was talking about sex on first dates and said he wouldn't want a relationship with anyone who shagged him on their first date. He'd recently had a date with a woman who had basically dragged him back to her place. He said the sex was great but she was way too desperate.

The conversation went on and on. He stated lack of self respect, too easy, not relationship material etc etc Slag was used at some point. 
This bloke went on a date with my lodger and had sex with her on my driveway behind my bins ffs! 

I should have said more than I did but I really didn't want to have a full blown argument in front of my other friends. That's one of the only times in my life that I've (momentarily) felt ashamed of my sexual history. Then I was just angry!


----------



## Cribynkle (Oct 28, 2014)

sparklefish said:


> I've posted about this before but a few months ago I ended up having a bit of a barney with someone about this. He's mates with my friend's boyfriend so I see him occasionally.
> 
> He was talking about sex on first dates and said he wouldn't want a relationship with anyone who shagged him on their first date. He'd recently had a date with a woman who had basically dragged him back to her place. He said the sex was great but she was way too desperate.
> 
> ...



 On so many levels. I love his assumption that when a woman sleeps with someone she wants a relationship. Also the assumption that a woman would want to have a relationship with such a hypocritical egotistical bellend


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2014)

killer b said:


> One of the things that's been making me cross about this thread: in common with many people, a large proportion of my female friends have been raped or seriously sexually assaulted, all of them have been groped, harassed and abused because they're women. None of them - not one - has seen any kind of justice, and only one of them even went to the police. I know this to be completely normal.
> 
> And yet, here we are after 30 pages, and some dickheads' priority is still protecting the men - suggesting that because in some outlandish circumstance that exists only in their mind someone might be wrongfully convicted for rape, then a law that could actually see some women see some justice should be scrapped. Fuck that. You need to look at your priorities.



We won't make headway in changing priorities (or the fervid imaginations of a bunch of slimeballs who see their own immediate gratification as a priority), until we change the structures that allow this sort of assault to be commonplace. I'm not talking about patriarchy _per se_ (although G-d knows patriarchy is implicated), I'm talking about the more immediate structures - a criminal justice system where institutional sexism is ingrained through all elements of the system, from the copper on the beat to the courtroom; a legislature where being a sexist boor is still a matter for congratulation among some members of both Houses; an education system that still militates against women studying "male" subjects, etc etc etc.
Until we change that, scum like Evans and his evangelists will keep on assuming (in spite of law to the contrary) that "right" is on their side. Until we come down hard on sexism every time it is manifested, and the message of *actual* equality is hammered home, things won't get better, they'll just keep on getting worse.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 28, 2014)

toggle said:


> forget what? he won't believe there is any problem, because he won't believe he did anything wrong.



And unfortunately attitudes in wider male society, but especially within our political and legal Establishments, tends to reinforce that belief. As long as we have people who believe in and proffer rape myths as justifications fro crime, and as long as people buy into them, we're snookered.


----------



## toggle (Oct 28, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> And unfortunately attitudes in wider male society, but especially within our political and legal Establishments, tends to reinforce that belief. As long as we have people who believe in and proffer rape myths as justifications fro crime, and as long as people buy into them, we're snookered.



eg. a not guilty verdict does not mean the victim has been proven a liar


----------



## hash tag (Oct 30, 2014)

For anyone who may be sitting on the touchline still, does this help? http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...a-teammate-9822204.html?origin=internalSearch


----------



## marty21 (Oct 30, 2014)

sparklefish said:


> I've posted about this before but a few months ago I ended up having a bit of a barney with someone about this. He's mates with my friend's boyfriend so I see him occasionally.
> 
> He was talking about sex on first dates and said he wouldn't want a relationship with anyone who shagged him on their first date. He'd recently had a date with a woman who had basically dragged him back to her place. He said the sex was great but she was way too desperate.
> 
> ...


I slept with mrs21 before our first date  in 1992 , I never understood this 'slag' 'easy' 'desperate' thing - I was always so grateful someone would want to have sex with me


----------



## sleepy555 (Oct 30, 2014)

trashpony said:


> This thread has reminded me of something that happened years ago. I was very drunk after an evening out with friends and a friend of a friend took me back to my flat. I remember being a bit flirty with him (because I did quite fancy him) but I really don't remember anything from the point we got home. When I woke up, my first thought was 'oh god, I bet L and I have had sex and I really didn't want to' and I was so, so relieved to find that he hadn't 'taken advantage' of me. He had instead put me to bed, fully clothed and gone home.
> 
> How fucked up is that? To be so grateful that my friend didn't rape me? I'm fairly most men wouldn't, but my expectation was that he would. I think this thread demonstrates the importance of consent in spades. There are a lot of men who don't seem to understand that asking a drunk woman for *overt consent *is absolutely crucial. I really don't see why that's so difficult. Unless of course you want to fuck her whether she really wants to or not.


----------



## xenon (Oct 30, 2014)




----------



## Wilf (Oct 30, 2014)

wtf


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 30, 2014)

sleepy555 said:


>




Doesn't seem an at all appropriate reply to TP's post (edited to add I think TP's post pretty much nails any argument about the wrongness of having sex  with someone who is unconscious...as if that argument needed nailing). Is it just a failed unfunny joke joke, or are you suggesting something else?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## toggle (Oct 30, 2014)

definitely got to wonder why someone joins to add that


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2014)

Any sort of sexist knobbers been banned recently?


----------



## toggle (Oct 30, 2014)

jv on tempban is the mot recent


----------



## trashpony (Oct 30, 2014)

Interesting only post  (although a good reminder that this forum is wide open to the world next time I feel the need to divulge parts of my own life to make a point)


----------



## Christy29 (Nov 6, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Seems old bill are now investigating Evans' website as it didn't have permission to use the video of Evans' victim from police, CPS or hotel.





trashpony said:


> I was wondering where you got this bit of guff from - the Ched Evans site - and you've added the reference in because it wasn't bloody there originally. You're seriously quoting that as a reputable source of information?
> 
> It's also not bloody true - which I think you've since realised because you've quoted the appeal transcript extensively. Pretty grim that you haven't retracted it





free spirit said:


> The cap seemed to fit.
> 
> 
> potentially. I didn't expect that everyone involved in drunken sex would suddenly find themselves locked up, just that they were more vulnerable to it if this was how the law was to be applied more widely.
> ...


----------



## marty21 (Nov 6, 2014)




----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 6, 2014)

great post Christy29  any chance you could tell us what it means.


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 6, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> great post Christy29  any chance you could tell us what it means.



Look at the profile.

I confidently predict this one won't last long.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 6, 2014)

a single issue idiot


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 6, 2014)

Why, what's so revealing about the profile? I know we all pretty much expect newbies to be banned returners with an agenda but it must be pretty daunting for someone new and trying to get to grips with the forum to deal with the hostile suspicion when we get it wrong.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 6, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> Look at the profile.
> 
> I confidently predict this one won't last long.


 Who has already been banned, on this page!


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 6, 2014)

Jesus wept. Banned for what reason?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 6, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Jesus wept. Banned for what reason?


I was guessing sleepy was the same person. If so, dunno, banned for a dodgy post, or as returner?

Edit - 884 was flameworthy rather than banworthy to me.


----------



## andysays (Nov 6, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Why, what's so revealing about the profile? I know we all pretty much expect newbies to be banned returners with an agenda but it must be pretty daunting for someone new and trying to get to grips with the forum to deal with the hostile suspicion when we get it wrong.



Their profile reads


> Clearly, Ched Evans was framed by despicable Police & C.P.S.not act when our raped-by-Moslems-schoolgirls asked for help



just someone new and trying to get to grips with the forum, innit


----------



## Wilf (Nov 6, 2014)

andysays said:


> Their profile reads
> 
> 
> just someone new and trying to get to grips with the forum, innit


 Ah!


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 6, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Why, what's so revealing about the profile? I know we all pretty much expect newbies to be banned returners with an agenda but it must be pretty daunting for someone new and trying to get to grips with the forum to deal with the hostile suspicion when we get it wrong.



"Clearly, Ched Evans was framed by despicable Police & C.P.S.not act when our raped-by-Moslems-schoolgirls asked for help ."

its not a returner, its a racist.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 6, 2014)

Oh right, cheers. I didnt see that either because they'd already been banned or because tapatalk is woefully shit at giving full profile info.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 6, 2014)

Doesn't look banned to me  never mind we can sort that out.


----------



## andysays (Nov 6, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Doesn't look banned to me  never mind we can sort that out.



It's good to be reminded that not *all* straight ahead trolls are returning bannees and that we can still attract "normal" trolls now and again


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 6, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Doesn't look banned to me  never mind we can sort that out.



Oh don't be mean, who doesn't like their single issue nut jobs with light racist flavouring?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 6, 2014)

I do think knew posters should be given a hundred posts grace unless it's obviously ninj for the twentieth time that night.


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 6, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I do think knew posters should be given a hundred posts grace unless it's obviously ninj for the twentieth time that night.



What, even when they're on about our_ raped-by-Moslems-schoolgirls_...?


----------



## The Octagon (Nov 11, 2014)

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/29980279



> Sheffield United will allow convicted rapist Ched Evans to train with them following their former player's release from prison, the BBC has learned.
> 
> The League One club continues to deliberate on any long-term decision about the Wales international.



Ugh.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 11, 2014)

Okay. Time to spam the sponsors.


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2014)

http://www.johnhollandsales.co.uk/
http://www.dbllogistics.com/

They're the main two. Load of shite the pair of them


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2014)

Away to walsall tonight - home to crewe week sat. Lots of time to build something for second.

Any utd fans on here?We heard about the chants the other weeek - what's the general pic?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 11, 2014)

belboid said:


> http://www.johnhollandsales.co.uk/
> http://www.dbllogistics.com/
> 
> They're the main two. Load of shite the pair of them




https://twitter.com/Jhollandsales

https://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Holland-Sales-Sheffield/100875736709366

https://twitter.com/dbllogistics

https://www.facebook.com/pages/DBL-Logistics/293623927327836


----------



## likesfish (Nov 11, 2014)

Apprantly those posters have an effect which is great though apprantly that means somebody is wandering around who needs to be reminded not to rape somebody


----------



## Betsy (Nov 11, 2014)

The Octagon said:


> http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/29980279
> 
> 
> 
> Ugh.


I wonder how his teammates feel about the whole issue?


----------



## hash tag (Nov 11, 2014)

Football is a very male dominated and very macho world; I hate to think. If he is training with them, they can't have that much of a problem with him.
Poor Nigel Clough, who I gather is not keen on having a rapist in his team, but is paid by those rather nice Arab owners!


----------



## Wilf (Nov 11, 2014)

Betsy said:


> I wonder how his teammates feel about the whole issue?


 Good question.  I imagine they've been told to keep 100% zip about it, using the appeal as a reason for silence.  Same time, I'd like to think there's a few of them with at least misgivings.


----------



## andysays (Nov 11, 2014)

Betsy said:


> I wonder how his teammates feel about the whole issue?





Wilf said:


> Good question.  I imagine they've been told to keep 100% zip about it, using the appeal as a reason for silence.  Same time, I'd like to think there's a few of them with at least misgivings.



Unless I've missed something, they're not his team mates - he is no longer part of the team, no longer employed by the club.

So to invite him in to train with them requires an explicit decision to be made by someone that this is an appropriate thing to do, and if the manager and the current members of the team are genuinely against it (I have no way of judging this one way or another), you have to wonder where the idea came from and what whoever made the decision was thinking


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 11, 2014)

So who's gonna tweet John Holland car sales and ask if they're giving Ched a free rape-mobile?


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2014)

andysays said:


> Unless I've missed something, they're not his team mates - he is no longer part of the team, no longer employed by the club.
> 
> So to invite him in to train with them requires an explicit decision to be made by someone that this is an appropriate thing to do, and if the manager and the current members of the team are genuinely against it (I have no way of judging this one way or another), you have to wonder where the idea came from and what whoever made the decision was thinking


the decision came from the board, led by that shit McCabe


----------



## andysays (Nov 11, 2014)

belboid said:


> the decision came from the board, led by that shit McCabe



So can anyone with more knowledge of the ins and outs of the football world confirm how common it is for a former member of a club who has been imprisoned after being found guilty of a crime while part of the team, but whose contract has expired when he's inside, to be invited back to train on his release?

I would guess it's pretty unusual


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2014)

West Brom told Lee Hughes to fuck off when he got out after three and a half years for killing by dangerous driving. Oldham snapped him straight up tho. Graham Rix immediately rejoined Chelsea after getting out for sex with an underage girl (not as a player, bit old for that), Barton immediately went back to Newcastle (tho that was 'only' affray)


----------



## Cribynkle (Nov 11, 2014)

And Luke McCormick's now captain of Plymouth Argyle after serving 4 years of a 7 year sentence for causing death by dangerous driving which he got while playing for them


----------



## Wilf (Nov 11, 2014)

andysays said:


> So can anyone with more knowledge of the ins and outs of the football world confirm how common it is for a former member of a club who has been imprisoned after being found guilty of a crime while part of the team, but whose contract has expired when he's inside, to be invited back to train on his release?
> 
> I would guess it's pretty unusual


 It's not that unusual for out of contract players to train with _another_ team. However this seems to be an explicit step towards the club having him back at Sheffield.  Something they didn't need to do - and _wouldn't_ have done if he wasn't thier top striker.


----------



## andysays (Nov 11, 2014)

Wilf said:


> It's not that unusual for out of contract players to train with _another_ team. However* this seems to be an explicit step towards the club having him back at Sheffield*.  Something they didn't need to do - and _wouldn't_ have done if he wasn't thier top striker.



Yeah, it's hard to come to any other conclusion.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 11, 2014)

Addidas taking a mild pounding on twitter & facebook.


----------



## comrade spurski (Nov 11, 2014)

hash: 13527581 said:
			
		

> Football is a very male dominated and very macho world; I hate to think. If he is training with them, they can't have that much of a problem with him.
> Poor Nigel Clough, who I gather is not keen on having a rapist in his team, but is paid by those rather nice Arab owners!


A) why is it relevant that the owners are arab?
B) nigel clough should have the power of his convictions and quit...he is hardly going to starve.

the PFA have requested that he be allowed to train at sheffield united....bunch of cunts imo


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> A) why is it relevant that the owners are arab?


Especially considering day to day running of the club is left to an Englishman.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 11, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So who's gonna tweet John Holland car sales and ask if they're giving Ched a free rape-mobile?


Done


----------



## hash tag (Nov 11, 2014)

Re the arabs, i think if you see earlier posts, that i was not the first to mention this...many. arabs look at "crimes" against women in a slightly different way to people in the west.
Re the fans, i seem to remember seeing a news clip of fans who would be happy to see him playing for the blades again.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 11, 2014)

hash tag said:


> Re the arabs, i think if you see earlier posts, that i was not the first to mention this...many. *arabs look at "crimes" against women in a slightly different way to people in the west*.
> .


That's quite a generalisation. 
Edit: both about the west and arabs.


----------



## AnIdiot (Nov 11, 2014)

hash tag said:


> Re the arabs, i think if you see earlier posts, that i was not the first to mention this...many. arabs look at "crimes" against women in a slightly different way to people in the west.
> Re the fans, i seem to remember seeing a news clip of fans who would be happy to see him playing for the blades again.



In case you hadn't noticed, numbnut, half of us 'arabs' are women, and we're capable of thinking for ourselves, as are our 'brothers', outside our 'arabness', without people speaking on our behalf , shukran you very much


----------



## CyberRose (Nov 11, 2014)

Here's the official statement from the club regarding Evans training with them...

http://mobile.sufc.co.uk/news/article/20141111-statement-2078346.aspx


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 11, 2014)

CyberRose said:


> Here's the official statement from the club regarding Evans training with them...
> 
> http://mobile.sufc.co.uk/news/article/20141111-statement-2078346.aspx


Thanks for posting that. It sets out their position quite clearly, although I find their statements about Evans sharing their value judgments about rape somewhat at odds with the case his defence put forward.


----------



## CyberRose (Nov 11, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Thanks for posting that. It sets out their position quite clearly, although I find their statements about Evans sharing their value judgments about rape somewhat at odds with the case his defence put forward.


Yea, he agrees rape is a heinous crime, he just doesn't think what he did was rape (as well as a disturbing number of people, including a lot of women)


----------



## Wilf (Nov 11, 2014)

CyberRose said:


> Here's the official statement from the club regarding Evans training with them...
> 
> http://mobile.sufc.co.uk/news/article/20141111-statement-2078346.aspx


I'm not sure about the timing of the pfa 'request' to his last club, but I'd guess evans representatives and the club were talking well before it was made.  And even though it was only recognising that he had made such a statement (rather than agreeing with what he said), the wording of this was a rather helpful spin on what he did actually acknowledge:


> Mr Evans, acknowledging the destructive nature of the acts, which led to his conviction, and seeking a chance to be rehabilitated by returning to work in his chosen trade after having completed the custodial portion of his sentence.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 11, 2014)

Wilf said:


> I'm not sure about the timing of the pfa 'request' to his last club, but I'd guess evans representatives and the club were talking well before it was made.  And even though it was only recognising that he had made such a statement (rather than agreeing with what he said), the wording of this was a rather helpful spin on what he did actually acknowledge:


Aye 'the acts that lead to his conviction' not 'the crimes that he carried out'. Very telling.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 11, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Aye 'the acts that lead to his conviction' not 'the crimes that he carried out'. Very telling.


 If I remember correctly, on his website the only thing he _acknowledged_ - with regard to 'the destructive nature of the acts which led to his conviction' - was cheating on his girlfriend (I'm not going back to check, felt a bit grubby going there in the first place). Nothing about the victim.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 12, 2014)

Exactly

If he showed any remorse/compassion to his victim people might not be so against  him.
But calling ched a role model for fighting against injustice

No he deserves all the shit he gets.

Re the birmigham 6 that was a miscarrige of justice ched thought two's up on a drunken woman his mate picked up was reasonable behaviour so bollocks about the miscarrige of justice.


----------



## toggle (Nov 12, 2014)

like the level of shitstirring eh's doing is actively encouraging the cunts who think behaving like he did is acceptable. and encouraging those who believe shit like rape allegations being morning after regret. it's giving a chance for all the cunts to yell louder.


----------



## andysays (Nov 12, 2014)

hash tag said:


> Re the arabs, i think if you see earlier posts, that i was not the first to mention this...many. arabs look at "crimes" against women in a slightly different way to people in the west.
> Re the fans, i seem to remember seeing a news clip of fans who would be happy to see him playing for the blades again.



Quite apart from your casual slandering of arabs, if this thread has demonstrated anything, it's that not all "people in the west" see crimes against women in the same way. 

It isn't necessary to journey many 100s of miles to the east to find those who are prepared to commit crimes against women and then deny that what they did was a crime, or those who are prepared to go along with the denial or at least overlook the crime if they would prefer to believe it couldn't possibly have happened that way.


----------



## comrade spurski (Nov 12, 2014)

hash tag said:


> Re the arabs, i think if you see earlier posts, that i was not the first to mention this...many. arabs look at "crimes" against women in a slightly different way to people in the west.
> Re the fans, i seem to remember seeing a news clip of fans who would be happy to see him playing for the blades again.



Are the fans arabs then? Only asking as these fans obviously " look at crimes against women in a slightly different way to people in the west."
And why is the word crime in inverted commas in your response?


----------



## belboid (Nov 12, 2014)

CyberRose said:


> Yea, he agrees rape is a heinous crime,


Says, not 'agrees' - he's just a turd pretending that he gives a fuck. 

Meanwhile, well done to club patron charlie Webster - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30015701


----------



## topher25 (Nov 12, 2014)

hash tag said:


> Re the arabs, i think if you see earlier posts, that i was not the first to mention this...many. arabs look at "crimes"* against women in a slightly different way to people in the west.*
> Re the fans, i seem to remember seeing a news clip of fans who would be happy to see him playing for the blades again.



Got any anecdotal evidence of that?


----------



## hash tag (Nov 12, 2014)

Which bit, about Middle East and rape - hows this for a start http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23381448

or about some Blades fans supporting his return - I can't find the television news link, but hows this to be going on with http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/524420/Ched-Evans-Sheffield-United-fans-chant-return-rapist

Yep well done Charlie for resigning.


----------



## belboid (Nov 12, 2014)

everyone knows some blades fans support his return - altho the chanters were a small minority in one section of the ground only.

As for arabs being dodgy on rape, yes of course some are, but you could pull exactly the same stories from the UK and ignorant british judges. And lets not forget that Blackpool FC are still owned by the rapist Owen Oyston


----------



## belboid (Nov 12, 2014)

Which reminds me...Oyston was denied early parole because he wouldn't complete the sex offenders programme, because he refused to accept his guilt. So how did Evans get out early?


----------



## andysays (Nov 12, 2014)

hash tag said:


> Which bit, about Middle East and rape - hows this for a start http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23381448
> 
> or about some Blades fans supporting his return - I can't find the television news link, but hows this to be going on with http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/524420/Ched-Evans-Sheffield-United-fans-chant-return-rapist...



Not sure how those two things, together or seperately, support your original contention that


> arabs look at "crimes"* against women in a slightly different way to people in the west *(highlighting by topher25)



although they would support the facile observation that you can find a sub-group of cunts within just about any larger group you care to mention.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 12, 2014)

hash tag may have a point; many Arab nations impose the death penalty for rape. We appear to give rapists the opportunity to earn millions of pounds whilst being an icon to teenage boys.


----------



## hash tag (Nov 12, 2014)

More to the point, Utd are 50% owned by a Saudi Prince. I am not saying that the bloke is bad but women have no rights in Saudi, in fact Saudi rank 127th out of 136, when it comes to equality for women. I wonder if the owner actually views rape as a crime against the perpetrator or the victim? If his views are different to ours, then he may not look on this rapist in such a bad light as the rest of us and may be ok about resigning him.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 12, 2014)

Tbf all concerned would jailed/killed in saudi public drunkness adultery not wearing a tent etc etc etc
  But then saudi arabia isnt exactly a place anyone would take answers from apart from obviously.
i have a billion dollars and want to spend it in the most tasteless way ever

Tbf its another plaything for the prince he probably cares very little for the players.

Cheds defence was she wanted it and any way shes a total slag so must have wanted it The only thing I regret is cheating on my precious girlfriend


----------



## topher25 (Nov 12, 2014)

hash tag said:


> Which bit, about Middle East and rape - hows this for a start http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23381448
> 
> or about some Blades fans supporting his return - I can't find the television news link, but hows this to be going on with http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/524420/Ched-Evans-Sheffield-United-fans-chant-return-rapist
> 
> Yep well done Charlie for resigning.



An authoritarian conservatively and bordering extreme Islamic regime? Hardly many Arabs is it.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 12, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> hash tag may have a point; many Arab nations impose the death penalty for rape.



Some have been known to punish the victim too.


----------



## hash tag (Nov 12, 2014)

I think some dodgy overseas person buying a uk football club is a way of buying seats on top tables in the UK. A way of buying respectability or acceptance if you like. This probably helps oil the wheels when it comes to doing other deals.


----------



## andysays (Nov 12, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> hash tag may have a point; many Arab nations impose the death penalty for rape. We appear to give rapists the opportunity to earn millions of pounds whilst being an icon to teenage boys.





hash tag said:


> More to the point, Utd are 50% owned by a Saudi Prince. I am not saying that the bloke is bad but women have no rights in Saudi, in fact Saudi rank 127th out of 136, when it comes to equality for women. I wonder if the owner actually views rape as a crime against the perpetrator or the victim? If his views are different to ours, then he may not look on this rapist in such a bad light as the rest of us and may be ok about resigning him.



Could you make some attempt to explain exactly who the "we" or the "ours" is in your respective posts.

We have already established pretty conclusively that even if the particular Saudi prince does view rape in this way (and I have no idea if he does or doesn't), his views are not significantly different from Ched Evans, or from a minority of Sheffield United fans (and no doubt many others as well).

And just because some Arab states impose the death penalty for rape, that doesn't tell us anything about "arabs" in general, which was the original contention. "We" generally don't give rapists the opportunity to earn millions of pounds whilst being an icon to teenage boys, which is why this case has caused the reaction it has.


----------



## belboid (Nov 12, 2014)

hash tag said:


> More to the point, Utd are 50% owned by a Saudi Prince. I am not saying that the bloke is bad but women have no rights in Saudi, in fact Saudi rank 127th out of 136, when it comes to equality for women. I wonder if the owner actually views rape as a crime against the perpetrator or the victim? If his views are different to ours, then he may not look on this rapist in such a bad light as the rest of us and may be ok about resigning him.


Why are you choosing to ignore the fact that - as previously stated - the day to day running of the club is left to the englishman, Kevin McCabe (owner of 50% of the club)


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 12, 2014)

hash tag said:


> I think some dodgy overseas person buying a uk football club is a way of buying seats on top tables in the UK. A way of buying respectability or acceptance if you like. This probably helps oil the wheels when it comes to doing other deals.


Jesus you're writing some crap this morning.


----------



## andysays (Nov 12, 2014)

I am frankly amazed and disappointed that various people are now making this about the ethnicity of the part-owner of Sheffield United.

Next you'll be arguing that none of this would ever have happened had it not been for the pernicious influence of "foreigners" bringing in their nasty misogynist ways and sullying nice respectable British football.


----------



## andysays (Nov 12, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Some have been known to punish the victim too.



When it comes to punishing the victim, let's not forget that the victim in this case has been outed and hounded to the extent that she has had to assume a new identity.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 12, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Some have been known to punish the victim too.



Yes, some Arab states have been known to do this. Whereas in the UK the victim is protected fully...oh wait.


----------



## Chilli.s (Nov 12, 2014)

If  Sheffield United want to re-employ this rapist its up to them. I cant see it winning any new fans though.


----------



## belboid (Nov 12, 2014)

Letter from Paul Blomfeld, whose constituency covers Bramall Lane.

Note (some of you, anyway) who the co-chairs are - don't sound very arabic to me


An open letter to Kevin McCabe and Jim Phipps, co-chairmen of Sheffield United FC.

Dear Kevin and Jim,

As you know, I've supported United through thick and thin for over 50 years, following the team home and away first with my father and then my son. It's because I care so much about our Club that I am writing to urge you to reconsider your decision to accept Ched Evans back to train with the team.

I have not commented publicly on the issue until now because I was confident, on the basis of our discussions over several months, that you would make the right decision in accordance with the values of our Club and because I didn't want to add to the damage to our reputation by needless speculation. I also sought to reassure people who contacted me about the good intentions of the Club. Sadly it appears I was wrong.

In the statement published yesterday evening, you rightly say that "rape is a heinous crime" and that you do "not question Mr Evans' conviction". You also highlight the right to "rehabilitation under law", with which I strongly agree. Everybody deserves a second chance, but with such serious offences this is based on offenders recognising the gravity of their crimes and seeking to make good for them. Since his release Ched Evans has not taken this first step towards rehabilitation, but has trivialised his crime by describing it as an “act of infidelity”.

So we are considering the case of an unrepentant convicted rapist. To take him back in these circumstances sends a disturbing message to young people and victims of sexual violence about how we view rape. It's also regrettable that, in all the views that your statement says were considered by the Board in reaching your decision, you don't mention the victim whose father has spoken movingly of how her life has been, and continues to be, damaged by Ched Evans’ crime.

The way this issue has been handled by the Club is dragging our name through the mud and dividing fans. Yesterday's decision only makes that situation worse. I really hope that you will reflect further and change your mind.

Yours sincerely,

Paul


----------



## CyberRose (Nov 12, 2014)

Jim Phipps (American) is co-chairman along with Kevin McCabe (British). McCabe is also co-owner with Prince Abdullah who was previously co-chairman but had to stand down as he's now minister for sport in Saudi Arabia (or youth welfare as it's called over there) and you can't be chairman of a football club if you're in a government position. Phipps is Abdullah's chief advisor


----------



## CyberRose (Nov 12, 2014)

belboid said:


> Which reminds me...Oyston was denied early parole because he wouldn't complete the sex offenders programme, because he refused to accept his guilt. So how did Evans get out early?


I was convinced he'd have to serve the full five years as that was determined by the court to be the length of time necessary to rehabilitate _and protect the public. _As he is half way through that process and has shown no indication he knows what he did was wrong surely he must still be a risk as somebody who is capable of committing a crime like this?

If he'd admitted what he'd done it would be a whole different debate and as much as I'd not want him back at the club I'd have to support anyone's right to rehabilitation after serving their sentence. This isn't the case with Ched


----------



## CyberRose (Nov 12, 2014)

Chilli.s said:


> If  Sheffield United want to re-employ this rapist its up to them. I cant see it winning any new fans though.


I think, unfortunately, that you'd be surprised...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 12, 2014)

belboid said:


> Which reminds me...Oyston was denied early parole because he wouldn't complete the sex offenders programme, because he refused to accept his guilt. So how did Evans get out early?



As I said earlier in the thread, if he didn't complete an SOTP, it was probably because one wasn't available to him, and non-availability would have been taken into account when considering his release.


----------



## belboid (Nov 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> As I said earlier in the thread, if he didn't complete an SOTP, it was probably because one wasn't available to him, and non-availability would have been taken into account when considering his release.


aah, sorry, missed/forgot that.

If one wasn't available to him, it's a fucking disgrace.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 12, 2014)

belboid said:


> aah, sorry, missed/forgot that.
> 
> If one wasn't available to him, it's a fucking disgrace.



Absolutely. Unfortunately, attendance and availability, in every case, are predicated on one thing, and one thing alone: The presence of POA members to accompany psychologists around the prison, and prisoners from cell to therapy. Prisons are now staffed in such a way that one or two people going sick in an establishment brings the entire duty roster for that shift tumbling down, so for inmates that means no treatment, no education, minimal physical exercise etc etc. It's fucking joke, and it's one that's been going on since around Michael Howard.


----------



## andysays (Nov 12, 2014)

belboid said:


> Which reminds me...Oyston was denied early parole because he wouldn't complete the sex offenders programme, because he refused to accept his guilt. So how did Evans get out early?





ViolentPanda said:


> As I said earlier in the thread, if he didn't complete an SOTP, it was probably because one wasn't available to him, and non-availability would have been taken into account when considering his release.



But don't you have to accept your guilt, the fact that you are a sex offender, *before* you can (meaningfully) take part in a sex offenders programme?

There may well be other issues about availability/access to this programme, but it sounds to me like what we have here is something else.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Absolutely. Unfortunately, attendance and availability, in every case, are predicated on one thing, and one thing alone: The presence of POA members to accompany psychologists around the prison, and prisoners from cell to therapy. Prisons are now staffed in such a way that one or two people going sick in an establishment brings the entire duty roster for that shift tumbling down, so for inmates that means no treatment, no education, minimal physical exercise etc etc. It's fucking joke, and it's one that's been going on since around Michael Howard.


 
He was in a beasts' prison though, would that not help?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 12, 2014)

belboid said:


> Letter from Paul Blomfeld, whose constituency covers Bramall Lane.
> 
> Note (some of you, anyway) who the co-chairs are - don't sound very arabic to me
> 
> ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> But don't you have to accept your guilt, the fact that you are a sex offender, *before* you can (meaningfully) take part in a sex offenders programme?



Nope, acceptance into a programme isn't predicated on prior admitted guilt. If it were, a lot fewer people would participate.
What the programmes do (very generally) as a first stage is encourage sex offenders to look at what got them in prison in the first place - many of them at this time will still be deploying various rape myths to themselves and others to justify their crime - and it's not until the offenders are able to view their crimes as others see them, and view their justifications for what they are, that they can move on to addressing *why* they might have undertaken such behaviours. In a (slight) majority of cases there's been abuse and/or neglect in the perpetrator's background, often of a degree that has "normalised" such behaviour to the perpetrator (such offenders are more likely to have started committing sexual offences as a juvenile).  For most of the rest, there's usually a mix of opportunism, narcissism and lack of empathy that come together to make a perpetrator weigh the odds of "getting away with it", and for a tiny minority their crime is related to drugs and/or a disordered personality.



> There may well be other issues about availability/access to this programme, but it sounds to me like what we have here is something else.



Such as?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 12, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He was in a beasts' prison though, would that not help?



Like I said, everything hinges on whether there's staff cover to take you to and from the therapy session, and on there being staff cover to take the psychologist (most of whom aren't directly-employed by the Home Office, so don't have staff privileges or the use of key sets) to and from reception to the session. Even in nicks like Grendon successful treatment often boils down to whether the staffing levels are adequate.


----------



## andysays (Nov 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope, acceptance into a programme isn't predicated on prior admitted guilt. If it were, a lot fewer people would participate.
> What the programmes do (very generally) as a first stage is encourage sex offenders to look at what got them in prison in the first place - many of them at this time will still be deploying various rape myths to themselves and others to justify their crime - and it's not until the offenders are able to view their crimes as others see them, and view their justifications for what they are, that they can move on to addressing *why* they might have undertaken such behaviours. In a (slight) majority of cases there's been abuse and/or neglect in the perpetrator's background, often of a degree that has "normalised" such behaviour to the perpetrator (such offenders are more likely to have started committing sexual offences as a juvenile).  For most of the rest, there's usually a mix of opportunism, narcissism and lack of empathy that come together to make a perpetrator weigh the odds of "getting away with it", and for a tiny minority their crime is related to drugs and/or a disordered personality.
> 
> Such as?



Thanks for that explanation and description, and for correcting my mis-assumption. I'm still concerned that a convicted rapist who hasn't even begun the process of rehabilitation by recognising his guilt can be released after only a couple of years. The poor availability of sex offender programmes might be part of the background to that, but it doesn't seem to me that it should be allowed to justify it (not suggesting that you personally are justifying it).

And I'm still left wondering if Evans' celebrity and ability to court/manipulate the media has contributed to his early release and, apparently, the bringing forward of his appeal against his conviction.


----------



## Sprocket. (Nov 12, 2014)

Was disgusted and dismayed when I heard two lads at work last night discussing this. They both said and were agreed with by the four lads sat with them, ''Evans has done nowt wrong, he's only done what 95% of blokes have done sometime in their lives.''
I despair and shake my head in disbelief that this is how some men see this behaviour.
What the fuck is wrong with this society?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 12, 2014)

andysays said:


> Thanks for that explanation and description, and for correcting my mis-assumption. I'm still concerned that a convicted rapist who hasn't even begun the process of rehabilitation by recognising his guilt can be released after only a couple of years. The poor availability of sex offender programmes might be part of the background to that, but it doesn't seem to me that it should be allowed to justify it (not suggesting that you personally are justifying it).
> 
> And I'm still left wondering if Evans' celebrity and ability to court/manipulate the media has contributed to his early release and, apparently, the bringing forward of his appeal against his conviction.



My only reply can be that a lot of supposedly-operational decisions are in fact political, so what you say is entirely possible, just as Harry Roberts doing 48 years was entirely-possibly down to the non-operational _diktat_ of politicians.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 12, 2014)

Sprocket. said:


> Was disgusted and dismayed when I heard two lads at work last night discussing this. They both said and were agreed with by the four lads sat with them, ''Evans has done nowt wrong, he's only done what 95% of blokes have done sometime in their lives.''
> I despair and shake my head in disbelief that this is how some men see this behaviour.
> What the fuck is wrong with this society?



Simplistically, a massive sense of entitlement - a belief that we deserve what we want, and that what we want we can take.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 12, 2014)

Sprocket. said:


> Was disgusted and dismayed when I heard two lads at work last night discussing this. They both said and were agreed with by the four lads sat with them, ''Evans has done nowt wrong, he's only done what 95% of blokes have done sometime in their lives.''
> I despair and shake my head in disbelief that this is how some men see this behaviour.
> What the fuck is wrong with this society?


 
In my life time I believe have seen a definite shift from a notion of social/collective responsibility (e.g. expressed in national, class and familial terms) to one of individual responsibility; a move from taking care of each other to taking care of ourselves. I'm not saying that this was always done; rather that the aspiration to look after each used to be more valued (culturally, politically, even economically), and that this has been overtaken by the idea that looking after number one is what is seen as being both achievable and desirable.

In this changed landscape, it not only becomes more explicable that a young man can excuse his own behaviour - his rape of an unconscious young woman - in terms of a perceived lack of personal responsibility on her part, it also becomes easier for others to agree with him. And just to make clear I'm not suggesting that women didn't get raped in some halcyon bygone era, but that the justifications for the crime and the ability for others to sympathise with the criminal have changed.

Cheers – Louis MacNeice


----------



## toggle (Nov 12, 2014)

Sprocket. said:


> Was disgusted and dismayed when I heard two lads at work last night discussing this. They both said and were agreed with by the four lads sat with them, ''Evans has done nowt wrong, he's only done what 95% of blokes have done sometime in their lives.''
> I despair and shake my head in disbelief that this is how some men see this behaviour.
> What the fuck is wrong with this society?


 all you have to do is look at the people arriving on this thread to defend him and they really do believe he was convicted solely as a result of having sex while drunk. he's managed to muddy the water to the point where a lot of people beleive it was  2 drunk people falling into the same bed together and one of them got convicted of rape.


----------



## Sprocket. (Nov 12, 2014)

toggle said:


> all you have to do is look at the people arriving on this thread to defend him and they really do believe he was convicted solely as a result of having sex while drunk. he's managed to muddy the water to the point where a lot of people beleive it was  2 drunk people falling into the same bed together and one of them got convicted of rape.



That's what I tried to point out last night and received a torrent of bile.
I said, in what universe does being unconscious mean okay I consent to whatever you want to subject me to, outside of an operating theatre. 
Got called a wuss!


----------



## toggle (Nov 12, 2014)

Sprocket. said:


> That's what I tried to point out last night and received a torrent of bile.
> I said, in what universe does being unconscious mean okay I consent to whatever you want to subject me to, outside of an operating theatre.
> Got called a wuss!



ah yes, you* are less of a man because you're capable of convincing conscious women to want to get jiggly with you and have all sorts of fun rather than fucking someone who is unconcious and can't show you any more enthusiasm and naughtyness than a sex toy.


*generalised 'you'


----------



## belboid (Nov 12, 2014)

Who says twitterstorms have no effect?  John Holland Sales Limited - blades shirt sponsors - have said they might pull out of the deal if Evans is re-signed.

Dave Berry and some businesswoman have also resigned from the SU Community Foundation

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheff...-of-deal-if-ched-evans-is-re-signed-1-6948870


----------



## CyberRose (Nov 12, 2014)

Sprocket. said:


> Was disgusted and dismayed when I heard two lads at work last night discussing this. They both said and were agreed with by the four lads sat with them, *''Evans has done nowt wrong, he's only done what 95% of blokes have done sometime in their lives.''*
> I despair and shake my head in disbelief that this is how some men see this behaviour.
> What the fuck is wrong with this society?


This, I think, is why a lot of people support Evans, because they don't want to think that something they themselves might have done could be considered rape.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 12, 2014)

belboid said:


> Who says twitterstorms have no effect?  John Holland Sales Limited - blades shirt sponsors - have said they might pull out of the deal if Evans is re-signed.
> 
> Dave Berry and some businesswoman have also resigned from the SU Community Foundation
> 
> http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/sheff...-of-deal-if-ched-evans-is-re-signed-1-6948870


 At one level, that's great (really, it is). Same time there's also a number of sponsors and others making PR decisions as to whether they can 'contain' the story.  That's not a dig at people who are making the right decision and taking a stand, it's just that for the club itself and probably the key sponsors this has become a cold financial/reputational calculation.  Pity the club couldn't fucking wise up earlier.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 12, 2014)

Wilf said:


> At one level, that's great (really, it is). Same time there's also a number of sponsors and others making PR decisions as to whether they can 'contain' the story.  That's not a dig at people who are making the right decision and taking a stand, it's just that for the club itself and probably the key sponsors this has become a cold financial/reputational calculation.  Pity the club couldn't fucking wise up earlier.



This is how capitalism works, sadly.

So yeah, keep up the pressure on the sponsors. No one wants their product/service associated in the public mind with rape.

edit; and not just sponsors, folk such as Paul Heaton, lifelong Blade, twitterstorm him enough and he'll have to decide whether he wants his 'brand' associated with rapists.


----------



## The Octagon (Nov 12, 2014)

Sean Bean is one of their most prominent fans, has he said anything (not that he has to per se, I'm just wondering)?


----------



## belboid (Nov 12, 2014)

He's a club patron as well, so should have some opinion


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 12, 2014)

The Octagon said:


> Sean Bean is one of their most prominent fans, has he said anything (not that he has to per se, I'm just wondering)?


One does not simply resign from Sheffield United


----------



## likesfish (Nov 12, 2014)

Sorry I was a squaddie in cyprus and my battalion managed to get through two years  without raping anyone so no not every manchild thinks fucking a woman whose out of it then inviting their mates for twos up is reasonable behaviour, ok knew one nutter who tried asking  he got a well deserved slap


----------



## toggle (Nov 12, 2014)

CyberRose said:


> This, I think, is why a lot of people support Evans, because they don't want to think that something they themselves might have done could be considered rape.



because they think all he did was have drunk sex



likesfish said:


> Sorry I was a squaddie in cyprus and my battalion managed to get through two years  without raping anyone so no not every manchild thinks fucking a woman whose out of it then inviting their mates for twos up is reasonable behaviour, ok knew one nutter who tried asking  he got a well deserved slap



that's the difference between drunk sex, which i'm guessing a shitload of them did manage to do. and what evans did. he's got every loudmouth fuckwit convinced that all he did was mutually drunk sex. look about, how many of his defenders will say she went back to the hotel with THEM. not she went back to a hotel room with one man who invited his mate along for a go.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 12, 2014)

Sprocket. said:


> That's what I tried to point out last night and received a torrent of bile.
> I said, in what universe does being unconscious mean okay I consent to whatever you want to subject me to, outside of an operating theatre.
> Got called a wuss!


I'd rather be a wuss than a rapist - and even for an operation you generally consent to certain things (emergency procedures notwithstanding). Clearly your colleagues don't think that.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 12, 2014)

I don't know why there's talk of whether the prison service provided him with the means for therapy or not.

He was a professional footballer and his gf's dad has forked out for a denial website and private investigators to harrass the victim. They can afford private therapy as soon as they get round to admitting he may be in the fucking wrong.


----------



## comrade spurski (Nov 12, 2014)

hash tag said:


> Which bit, about Middle East and rape - hows this for a start http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23381448
> 
> or about some Blades fans supporting his return - I can't find the television news link, but hows this to be going on with http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/524420/Ched-Evans-Sheffield-United-fans-chant-return-rapist
> 
> Yep well done Charlie for resigning.


You are missing the point about the owners....
On one hand you say Sheffield united having arab owners is a big reason for him now training with them as "they" (arabs) do not take rape seriously like "we" do.
You then said that lots of sheffield united fans think he has done no wrong...so is that cos sheffield united fans are arabs or is you point about arab owners and " them " and " we " actually ill thought out bollocks?
He is a rapist fuck. His family, girlfriends and supporters are fucks that support this rapist fuck. The club are money grabbing fucks who are trying to see if they can get a footballer for free. The fans who support him are souless fucks. the pfa are fucks with no moral backbone.

Nothing about this is to do with arabs or "them" or "us" ... it is to do with a rapist fuck and his supporters who blame a woman, the police, the courts, women etc. instead of blaming the rapist.


----------



## hash tag (Nov 12, 2014)

Very pleased to hear this evening to hear that if the rapist stays, two shirt sponsors will withdraw their sponsorship.lets hope more follow. I know this doesnt put things right, but im sure a few quid from the sponsors to the victim wouldnt go amiss.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 13, 2014)

If ched admitted what he'd did was rape and was wrong I'd have no problem carrying on playing wendyball.
 its the ched is the real victim of this posionous woman crap I cant stad the idea of hiring a pi to pursue a rape victim fuck him and his supporters


----------



## J Ed (Nov 13, 2014)

likesfish said:


> If ched admitted what he'd did was rape and was wrong I'd have no problem carrying on playing wendyball.
> its the ched is the real victim of this posionous woman crap I cant stad the idea of hiring a pi to pursue a rape victim fuck him and his supporters



From speaking with people about this it seems like the smear campaign has worked with quite a few


----------



## comrade spurski (Nov 13, 2014)

Sheffield uniteds statement talks about mob rule at one point...

http://www.sufc.co.uk/news/article/20141111-statement-2078346.aspx

So they refuse to call him a rapist...as in "we have welcomed back a convicted rapist into our club to train" but are happy to call those opposing this decision a mob?
Fucking animals...140 yrs of history being poisoned to save money on buying a striker....fucking souless


----------



## Betsy (Nov 13, 2014)

hash tag said:


> Very pleased to hear this evening to hear that if the rapist stays, two shirt sponsors will withdraw their sponsorship.lets hope more follow. I know this doesnt put things right, but im sure a few quid from the sponsors to the victim wouldnt go amiss.


I have emailed them to thank them for their stance on this + Dave Berry  who has stood down as a patron.


----------



## hash tag (Nov 13, 2014)

So they say this will help rehabilitate him. He acknowledges the destrucive nature of his acts.....really? Dont think so somehow


he PFA, declaring that professional footballers should be treated as equals before the law, including in circumstances where they seek to be rehabilitated and to return to work in their chosen trade following periods of incarceration; and 

Mr Evans, acknowledging the destructive nature of the acts, which led to his conviction, and seeking a chance to be rehabilitated by returning to work in his chosen trade after having completed the custodial portion of his sentence.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 13, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> Sheffield uniteds statement talks about mob rule at one point...
> 
> http://www.sufc.co.uk/news/article/20141111-statement-2078346.aspx
> 
> ...




That statement by the club is most remarkable demonstration of Doublethink I've seen in years.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 13, 2014)

hash tag said:


> So they say this will help rehabilitate him. *He acknowledges the destrucive nature of his acts.....really?* Dont think so somehow
> 
> 
> he PFA, declaring that professional footballers should be treated as equals before the law, including in circumstances where they seek to be rehabilitated and to return to work in their chosen trade following periods of incarceration; and
> ...



From Ched's statement:

_On 20 April 2012 I was convicted of a crime I did not commit..._
_
_​From the club statement:
_
The Club condemns rape and violence of any kind against women in the strongest possible terms. More specifically, the Club considers rape, the crime for which Mr Evans was convicted, to be a heinous crime worthy of serious punishment as provided under law. The Club has been assured by Mr Evans that he shares these value judgements. 

_​Ched thinks rape is a heinous crime, but its a crime he didn't commit. So what are the destructive acts that led to his conviction? Evan's denial, his lack of remorse and the club's tortuous collusion with him are disgusting.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## hash tag (Nov 13, 2014)

I can't find emails for McCabe and Phipps so have written to "club" and Gil Steyaert.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 13, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> . So what are the destructive acts that led to his conviction? Evan's denial, his lack of remorse and the club's tortuous collusion with him are disgusting.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 Indeed. The only destructive act he seems to have acknowledged is cheating on his girlfriend.  If that is the case, the club are guilty of outright dishonesty (though if pressed they'll equivocate or hint that he's said something in private about regrets over his drunken/casual sex lifestyle). Disgusting.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 13, 2014)

Ched raped somebody
  He thinks what he did diesnt count as rape

Somebody who finds themselves in jail for two years might have time to think that maybe I am a rapist.
 The woman didnt  make the initial complaint. Police get called by woman in hotel room with no knowledge of went on last night doesnt take morse to decide somethings up fleeing the scence and asking the porter to check on the victim does tend to set alarm bells ringing.

Maybe I'm wrong and Ched is the new mandela soon  to be featured on amnesty internationals calender as his fight for the precious human right of a twos up on a mates drunken pick up


----------



## Athos (Nov 13, 2014)

The club's carefully crafted statement is, in essence, misleading.  What it fails to acknowledge is that he is unrepentant about the fact that he is a rapist.  What sort of club (and sponsors) want to be associated with an unrepentant rapist?  Because, at a stroke, it makes a lie of any claim to condemn rape.  And to dress up a shabby commercial decision to get a cheap striker as some sort of crusade for offenders' rights to rehabilitation is nonsense; nobody has a right to be a footballer - it's a position of privilege which ought to carry the burden of responsibility.  Like it or not, the club's decision to employ him will put him in a position of a role model for young boys; does the club (and it's sponsors) really want to be holding out an unrepentant rapist as a role model?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 13, 2014)

Athos said:


> The club's carefully crafted statement is, in essence, misleading.  What it fails to acknowledge is that he is unrepentant about the fact that he is a rapist.  What sort of club (and sponsors) want to be associated with an unrepentant rapist?  Because, at a stroke, it makes a lie of any claim to condemn rape.  And to dress up a shabby commercial decision to get a cheap striker as some sort of crusade for offenders' rights to rehabilitation is nonsense; nobody has a right to be a footballer - it's a position of privilege which ought to carry the burden of responsibility.  Like it or not, the club's decision to employ him will put him in a position of a role model for young boys; does the club (and it's sponsors) really want to be holding out an unrepentant rapist as a role model?



To be clear at this time the club hasn't agreed to re-employ him; they are allowing him to train with them. If I was being cynical I'd say they want to check out if he's worth taking the flak for...and yes I am being cynical. Unlike Ched the club seem to have no convictions merely self interest.

Cheers - Louis Macneice


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 13, 2014)

likesfish said:


> If ched admitted what he'd did was rape and was wrong I'd have no problem carrying on playing wendyball.



Yep. His PR people are either fucking mad or they really couldn't convince him of the benefit of owning up to what he's done.

A statement acknowledging what he is and what he's done and how terrible his behaviour and outlook on life was, noting he's reflected, taken help and changed, apoligise to his victim etc. A large bung to a rape charity and this shitstorm would never have brewed. It's too late now of course, any backtracking will just seem like him saying whatever to get his job back. And in some ways I'm glad, cos the rapist scumbag is now truly fucked.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 13, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> To be clear at this time the club hasn't agreed to re-employ him; they are allowing him to train with them. If I was being cynical I'd say they want to check out if he's worth taking the flak for...and yes I am being cynical. Unlike Ched the club seem to have no convictions merely self interest.
> 
> Cheers - Louis Macneice



Cynical; testing the reaction if they did take the cunt back.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 13, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Cynical; testing the reaction if they did take the cunt back.



I think they're looking at both the reaction to taking him back and what he's like as a player after his two and half year lay off. It's business and they're weighing up the cost and benefits.

The potentially really damaging effects on the victim and Evans actually taking responsibility for actions seem to come a very very distant second; as I said its disgusting.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 13, 2014)

Oops


----------



## Wilf (Nov 13, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yep. His PR people are either fucking mad or they really couldn't convince him of the benefit of owning up to what he's done.
> 
> A statement acknowledging what he is and what he's done and how terrible his behaviour and outlook on life was, noting he's reflected, taken help and changed, apoligise to his victim etc. A large bung to a rape charity and this shitstorm would never have brewed. It's too late now of course, any backtracking will just seem like him saying whatever to get his job back. And in some ways I'm glad, cos the rapist scumbag is now truly fucked.


 In terms of the calculations the club(s) will be making I suspect this is shifting towards Sheffield not taking him on, particularly if the sponsors do put pressure on - though it's 50/50 at the moment. The sad thing is I suspect some lower league team will then try to sign him up as a bargain.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 13, 2014)

Apols, Im out of the loop on this issue, or if this has been answered: have the Welsh FA stated a position on his potential (or not) for the international squad?


----------



## toggle (Nov 13, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yep. His PR people are either fucking mad or they really couldn't convince him of the benefit of owning up to what he's done.
> 
> A statement acknowledging what he is and what he's done and how terrible his behaviour and outlook on life was, noting he's reflected, taken help and changed, apoligise to his victim etc. A large bung to a rape charity and this shitstorm would never have brewed. It's too late now of course, any backtracking will just seem like him saying whatever to get his job back. And in some ways I'm glad, cos the rapist scumbag is now truly fucked.



sometimes it's good to see a shit like that getting theirs. i'm more mourning the lost oportunity to educate on consent. if we weren't too busy fighting back against the shitstorm of righteous indignation stating that what didn't actually happen wasn't rape, then we could be focussing on using that.

but instead he's proving that he's a shit


----------



## belboid (Nov 13, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Apols, Im out of the loop on this issue, or if this has been answered: have the Welsh FA stated a position on his potential (or not) for the international squad?


The Football Association of Wales is aware of the recent verdict in the trial of the Welsh international Ched Evans and recognises the seriousness of the situation.

No one from the association will be making further comment at this time.


----------



## toggle (Nov 13, 2014)

Wilf said:


> In terms of the calculations the club(s) will be making I suspect this is shifting towards Sheffield not taking him on, particularly if the sponsors do put pressure on - though it's 50/50 at the moment. The sad thing is I suspect some lower league team will then try to sign him up as a bargain.



at which point, I hope their supporters are, in the main, as disgusted as Sheffield's. and are prepared to speak up on that


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 13, 2014)

toggle said:


> sometimes it's good to see a shit like that getting theirs. i'm more mourning the lost oportunity to educate on consent. if we weren't too busy fighting back against the shitstorm of righteous indignation stating that what didn't actually happen wasn't rape, then we could be focussing on using that.
> 
> but instead he's proving that he's a shit



Quite. Whilst it's nice to see a cunt like this be denied his life of luxury, it serves schadenfreude more than anything practical. If he had real remorse in accepting what he'd done and he really had changed, imagine the impact that could have if he's out there playing top level football at the same time as telling anyone and everyone about the true nature of consent.

But he still thinks the rape he committed wasn't rape, so that's not gonna happen. So fuck him.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 13, 2014)

DB Logistics has stated they will end their relationship with SUFC if they re-employ Evans, the other shirt sponsor John Holland motors has said they will re-consider.

Adidas is so far keeping quiet, you can phone their customer service line on 0800 389 3845 (option 3) and ask if they will continue to sponsor SUFC if they employ an unrepentant rapist.


----------



## trashpony (Nov 13, 2014)

If you want to feel really bloody angry, read this fucking asinine article in today's Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ans-Sorry-but-all-rapes-are-not-the-same.html
then read this which may make you feel a bit better: 
http://everydayvictimblaming.com/responses-to-media/allison-pearson-scores-an-own-goal/


----------



## bluescreen (Nov 13, 2014)

Jessica Ennis-Hill has just announced she wants her name removed from the stand if Evans is granted a contract. Good woman. 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30046618


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 13, 2014)

Good on you Jessica.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30046618


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2014)

trashpony said:


> If you want to feel really bloody angry, read this fucking asinine article in today's Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ans-Sorry-but-all-rapes-are-not-the-same.html
> then read this which may make you feel a bit better:
> http://everydayvictimblaming.com/responses-to-media/allison-pearson-scores-an-own-goal/


tbh most things in the telegraph are calculated to make thinking people angry.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 13, 2014)

trashpony said:


> If you want to feel really bloody angry, read this fucking asinine article in today's Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ans-Sorry-but-all-rapes-are-not-the-same.html
> then read this which may make you feel a bit better:
> http://everydayvictimblaming.com/responses-to-media/allison-pearson-scores-an-own-goal/


EVB article is brilliant. Allison Pearson should take a long hard look at herself. Rape is rape.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> EVB article is brilliant. Allison Pearson should take a long hard look at herself. Rape is rape.


i don't suppose for a moment that she believes half the things she writes, she'll sell her pen for a mess of pottage.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't suppose for a moment that she believes half the things she writes, she'll sell her pen for a mess of pottage.


In this case I don't really care if she doesn't believe it. Other people _will_ believe there is a sliding scale of rape and everything achieved over the last 30-odd years will start to become undone.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> In this case I don't really care if she doesn't believe it. Other people _will_ believe there is a sliding scale of rape and everything achieved over the last 30-odd years will start to become undone.


everything achieved over the past 100+ years has been unravelling for quite some time 

people like pearson help to normalise it - as you say - and should imo be held to account. for too long they've had power without responsibility.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> In this case I don't really care if she doesn't believe it. Other people _will_ believe there is a sliding scale of rape and everything achieved over the last 30-odd years will start to become undone.


you cannot hope to bribe or twist,
thank god! the british journalist.
but, seeing what the man will do
unbribed, there's no occasion to.


----------



## trashpony (Nov 13, 2014)

> *Ennis-Hill wants name removed from Bramall Lane stand if Blades sign Evans*
> Olympic Heptathlon Champion Jessica Ennis-Hill will ask Sheffield United to remove her name from the stand at Bramall Lane if Ched Evans if offered a contract with the club, according to reports.


http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/up...from-bramall-lane-stand-if-blades-sign-evans/


----------



## Betsy (Nov 13, 2014)

bluescreen said:


> Jessica Ennis-Hill has just announced she wants her name removed from the stand if Evans is granted a contract. Good woman.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30046618


Good on yer,Jessica!


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2014)

Watching the QT bit on this and the issue of Evans' international career was raised. Have the FA of Wales made any comment yet?


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 13, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Watching the QT bit on this and the issue of Evans' international career was raised. Have the FA of Wales made any comment yet?


See post #1014


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> See post #1014


So no, then...essentially.


----------



## Betsy (Nov 13, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Watching the *QT* bit on this and the issue of Evans' international career was raised. Have the FA of Wales made any comment yet?


*From Twitter..
Rod Liddle on Question Time: "This is “politically correct hypocrisy”; other footballers have returned to their jobs after being convicted of crimes." *


----------



## brogdale (Nov 13, 2014)

Betsy said:


> *From Twitter..
> Rod Liddle  *



...comes out with offensive, contrarian bollux....shocker.


----------



## Athos (Nov 13, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> In this case I don't really care if she doesn't believe it. Other people _will_ believe there is a sliding scale of rape and everything achieved over the last 30-odd years will start to become undone.



What are your views on the Sentencing Council's guidelines for rape (http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary....fences_Definitive_Guideline_content_(web).pdf), which provide for a very wide range of sentences (four years to life), depending on a number of aggravating and mitigating factors.  Do they amount to a sliding scale of rape?  Should there be one fixed tariff for rape?

Or perhaps it'd be better to approach it like this: all rape is rape, but some rapes have aggravating factors in addition to the act of rape itself i.e. rape is an horrendous crime, and so there's a minimum of 10 years for every rape, but you'll get an extra so many years if, say, you filmed it and put it on the net, caused a person to fear for their life, abused a position of trust etc..  This is different to saying that some rapes aren't 'real' rapes, which is what the Telegraph article is intimating, and, importantly, it wouldn't have victim-blaming mitigating factors to reduce the sentence e.g. she was promiscuous, led him on, chose to drink to excess etc..


----------



## belboid (Nov 14, 2014)

There are very few mitigating factors, far fewer than for most serious crimes:

Mitigating factors
No previous convictions
or
no relevant/recent convictions
Remorse
Previous good character and/or exemplary conduct*
Age and/or lack of maturity where it affects the responsibility of the offender
Mental disorder or learning disability, particularly where linked to the commission of the offence
*
Previous good character/exemplary conduct is different from having no previous convictions. The more serious the offence, the less the weight which should normally be attributed to this factor. Where previous good character/exemplary conduct has been used to facilitate the offence, this mitigation should not normally be allowed and such conduct may
constitute an aggravating factor.
In the context of this offence, previous good character/exemplary conduct should not normally be given any significant weight and will not normally justify a reduction in what would otherwise be the appropriate sentence.

Evans had no previous convictions, but otherwise...


----------



## topher25 (Nov 14, 2014)

something that occured last night is that a person whongets a sentence  f over two years is never rehabiliated? i.e the offence is never spent.


----------



## bmd (Nov 14, 2014)

topher25 said:


> something that occured last night is that a person whongets a sentence  f over two years is never rehabiliated? i.e the offence is never spent.



Isn't it 3?


----------



## topher25 (Nov 14, 2014)

4 years


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2014)

trashpony said:


> If you want to feel really bloody angry, read this fucking asinine article in today's Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ans-Sorry-but-all-rapes-are-not-the-same.html
> then read this which may make you feel a bit better:
> http://everydayvictimblaming.com/responses-to-media/allison-pearson-scores-an-own-goal/



Read the story, then noticed the byline - typical Pearson bullshit, unfortunately.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 14, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> EVB article is brilliant. Allison Pearson should take a long hard look at herself. Rape is rape.



Pearson has been retailing similar in the rightwing press for 20 years or so, like a poor man's Lynda Lee Potter, but unfortunately not dead like Potter


----------



## andysays (Nov 14, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Watching the QT bit on this and the issue of Evans' international career was raised. Have the FA of Wales made any comment yet?





equationgirl said:


> See post #1014



Post #1014


belboid said:


> The Football Association of Wales is aware of the recent verdict in the trial of the Welsh international Ched Evans and recognises the seriousness of the situation. No one from the association will be making further comment at this time.



appears to be from when the verdict was handed down rather than since his release and the issue coming to prominence again. Anyone confirm or contradict that?

Also
Ched Evans 'cannot go back to football' Carwyn Jones says




> Speaking on the BBC's Question Time, Mr Jones said Evans had not apologised to his victim.
> 
> He said: 'What does it mean for her to see him back in a job where he will earn a lot of money after being a convicted rapist? If you are a role model and you are convicted of a serious offence such as rape, and you don't apologise at the very least, you don't say you accept that you committed a serious offence, you can't go back to a job like football."





> Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood, a former probation officer, said: "I think there is a danger of sending a message to young people who look at footballers as role models, there is a danger that we send a message that rape isn't a serious offence."
> 
> Welsh Liberal Democrat leader Kirsty Williams said she would feel "incredibly uncomfortable" if Evans were ever to play for Wales again.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 14, 2014)

Some twitter hero tweets that he hopes evans will rape Jessica Ennis:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ched-evans-jessica-ennis-hill-twitter-4626991
How low can you go is an overused phrase, but maybe not in this case. Sweet Jesus.


----------



## hash tag (Nov 14, 2014)

Ye gods. Freedom of speech? Crikey, no way.


----------



## Betsy (Nov 14, 2014)

Wilf said:


> *Some twitter hero tweets that he hopes evans will rape Jessica Ennis:*
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ched-evans-jessica-ennis-hill-twitter-4626991
> How low can you go is an overused phrase, but maybe not in this case. Sweet Jesus.


I gasped,in horror, when I read that. It is frightening (and worrying) that there are people out there who think like that.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 14, 2014)

I bet they wouldn't think like that if they were to be unmasked. So its probably a case of:


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 14, 2014)

Without knowing too much about this case how come the other footballer was acquitted -did he have sex with the victim too?


----------



## JTG (Nov 14, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> Without knowing too much about this case how come the other footballer get off-did he have sex with the victim too?


He did - consensual sex


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 14, 2014)

JTG said:


> He did - consensual sex



So she consented-but then passed out after which ched raped her?


----------



## JTG (Nov 14, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> So she consented-but then passed out after which ched raped her?


No, she agreed to go back with him after meeting him on a night out. He then texted Evans to come and join them. She can't remember any of this.


----------



## marty21 (Nov 14, 2014)

Betsy said:


> *From Twitter..
> Rod Liddle on Question Time: "This is “politically correct hypocrisy”; other footballers have returned to their jobs after being convicted of crimes." *


 a few come mind - Lee Hughes - ex West Brom, Coventry and a few other clubs - dangerous driving - he killed somone - got 6 years, was released after 3 - got a club fairly quickly but at a lower level than before - playing Conference football now. Luke McCormick, killed 2 kids in a car crash, got 7 years, released after 3 and a half - and eventually did return to his former club (Plymouth) and was recently made club captain . Marlon King, for numerous offences, including fraud, driving offences, violent offences, sexual assault - currently banged up but has played for various clubs between spells of being banged up (he is currently banged up) Jermain Pennant played with a tag (I think for Liverpool or Birmingham) and I'm sure there are many other players or ex -players who have served time. Having said that I think Hughes and McCormick did admit their guilt and issued statements of apology and regret - Evans continues to protest his innocence and his video statement just said he'd made a mistake and was unfaithful - no apology to the victim at all


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 14, 2014)

JTG said:


> No, she agreed to go back with him after meeting him on a night out. He then texted Evans to come and join them. She can't remember any of this.



So was she concious when the first footballer was having sex?


----------



## belboid (Nov 14, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> So was she concious when the first footballer was having sex?


she was judged to have been conscious enough when she agreed for him to take her back to the hotel, that when he did fuck her, he had good reason to believe there was consent. She was completely smashed when Evans arrived (not at her invitation), and so he had no good reason to believe she had given meaningful consent.


----------



## JTG (Nov 14, 2014)

marty21 said:


> a few come mind - Lee Hughes - ex West Brom, Coventry and a few other clubs - dangerous driving - he killed somone - got 6 years, was released after 3 - got a club fairly quickly but at a lower level than before - playing Conference football now. Luke McCormick, killed 2 kids in a car crash, got 7 years, released after 3 and a half - and eventually did return to his former club (Plymouth) and was recently made club captain . Marlon King, for numerous offences, including fraud, driving offences, violent offences, sexual assault - currently banged up but has played for various clubs between spells of being banged up (he is currently banged up) Jermain Pennant played with a tag (I think for Liverpool or Birmingham) and I'm sure there are many other players or ex -players who have served time. Having said that I think Hughes and McCormick did admit their guilt and issued statements of apology and regret - Evans continues to protest his innocence and his video statement just said he'd made a mistake and was unfaithful - no apology to the victim at all


Hughes refuses to discuss the whole thing and his victims don't really feel that his statement of regret was sincere.

When there were rumours that my club were interested in signing him the other week, the vast majority of fans expressed unease about it ranging from not applauding him or his goals to outright boycott if he signed.

Incidentally, David Pipe was released by us shortly before his conviction for assaulting a man by smashing a champagne bottle over his head. Since his release he has played for Newport County and Forest Green Rovers (Hughes' current club). Maybe Evans could join them, they don't seem to mind.


----------



## marty21 (Nov 14, 2014)

JTG said:


> Hughes refuses to discuss the whole thing and his victims don't really feel that his statement of regret was sincere.
> 
> When there were rumours that my club were interested in signing him the other week, the vast majority of fans expressed unease about it ranging from not applauding him or his goals to outright boycott if he signed.
> 
> Incidentally, David Pipe was released by us shortly before his conviction for assaulting a man by smashing a champagne bottle over his head. Since his release he has played for Newport County and Forest Green Rovers (Hughes' current club). Maybe Evans could join them, they don't seem to mind.


Evans was probably about to get a big money move , I think someone said he was on 20k a week before the rape - I don't hink FGR can match that he probably has 'advisors' telling him that he can still play in the premiership and earn £100k a week 

I agree with your comment about Hughes - I think my point was that there was an element of accepting that they had committed the crime - Evans has consistently refused to admit that he did anything wrong at all


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2014)

After King's Conviction for sexual assault the PFA said it was none of their business and wouldn't be supporting him after he did his time if he was looking for a way back into the game. Hodgson was then his nominal manager and said he could fuck off and this was a clear moral matter. Wenger said _of course he can come back._


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 14, 2014)

belboid said:


> she was judged to have been conscious enough when she agreed for him to take her back to the hotel, that when he did fuck her, he had good reason to believe there was consent. She was completely smashed when Evans arrived (not at her invitation), and so he had no good reason to believe she had given meaningful consent.



So she was smashed as in really drunk but concious or smashed as in passed out when evans raped her?


----------



## JTG (Nov 14, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> So she was smashed as in really drunk but concious or smashed as in passed out when evans raped her?


Who knows? Only Evans does.


----------



## belboid (Nov 14, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> So she was smashed as in really drunk but concious or smashed as in passed out when evans raped her?


unknown


----------



## marty21 (Nov 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> After King's Conviction for sexual assault the PFA said it was none of their business and wouldn't be supporting him after he did his time if he was looking for a way back into the game. Hodgson was then his nominal manager and said he could fuck off and this was a clear moral matter. Wenger said _of course he can come back._


 King is currently serving 18 months so may well try and get back into the game when he comes out , he is still relatively young (32/33?) He may well end up at FGR


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2014)

marty21 said:


> King is currently serving 18 months so may well try and get back into the game when he comes out , he is still relatively young (32/33?) He may well end up at FGR


This conviction i meant was 5 years ago though. The PFA stance seems to have changed since then and Hodgson has not said anything this time despite his higher profile _role_.


----------



## marty21 (Nov 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> This conviction i meant was 5 years ago though. The PFA stance seems to have changed since then and Hodgson has not said anything this time despite his higher profile _role_.


 ok, King has been banged up a lot, probably me that was confused about the time frame


----------



## andysays (Nov 14, 2014)

Worth pointing out that Evans hasn't merely refused to acknowledge his guilt, he's appealing to have his conviction overturned. Clearly he has the legal right to do that, but it's taking the piss to think he can slot back into his former lucrative career while that's going on.

You almost wonder if the current business with the training/possible return to SU or elsewhere is supposed to be part of a PR campaign aimed at influencing his appeal, but either he or his advisors must be crazy if they think this is going to help.



Grandma Death said:


> So she was smashed as in really drunk but concious or smashed as in passed out when evans raped her?



All this has been gone through in some detail earlier in the thread. It might be worth going back to have a read, although there's been some nasty shit which might be better avoided, unfortunately.


----------



## belboid (Nov 14, 2014)

marty21 said:


> a few come mind - Lee Hughes - ex West Brom, Coventry and a few other clubs - dangerous driving - he killed somone - got 6 years, was released after 3 - got a club fairly quickly but at a lower level than before - playing Conference football now.


Hughes was playing for Notts County when I saw them playing Tranmere.  Had to put up with chants of 'murderer' for the whole game, same at Sheffield United, ironically enough. Couldn't have made it easy for him, or his team-mates.


----------



## belboid (Nov 14, 2014)

andysays said:


> Worth pointing out that Evans hasn't merely refused to acknowledge his guilt, he's appealing to have his conviction overturned. Clearly he has the legal right to do that, but it's taking the piss to think he can slot back into his former lucrative career while that's going on.
> 
> You almost wonder if the current business with the training/possible return to SU or elsewhere is supposed to be part of a PR campaign aimed at influencing his appeal, but either he or his advisors must be crazy if they think this is going to help.
> 
> ...


I'd be fairly sure he knows he has no chance of being re-signed till his final appeal has gone through.  He'll be hoping he'll be found not guilty, and all the opposition will go quickly away.  It wont, of course, even if his conviction is overturned.  And that doesn't seem likely.


----------



## marty21 (Nov 14, 2014)

belboid said:


> Hughes was playing for Notts County when I saw them playing Tranmere.  Had to put up with chants of 'murderer' for the whole game, same at Sheffield United, ironically enough. Couldn't have made it easy for him, or his team-mates.


 yep, I can imagine - he must have money issues to continue playing , he is 38 now and still playing, given what you said, it can't be for the joy of playing


----------



## andysays (Nov 14, 2014)

belboid said:


> I'd be fairly sure he knows he has no chance of being re-signed till his final appeal has gone through.  He'll be hoping he'll be found not guilty, and all the opposition will go quickly away.  It wont, of course, even if his conviction is overturned.  And that doesn't seem likely.



You'd think so, but surely then the thing to do would be to keep his head down for the time being, rather than continuing to ensure that the story of him as an unrepentant rapist is in the news every day


----------



## marty21 (Nov 14, 2014)

andysays said:


> You'd think so, but surely then the thing to do would be to keep his head down for the time being, rather than continuing to ensure that the story of him as an unrepentant rapist is in the news every day


 it is huge profile - discussed on Question Time, regularly in the main news buletins


----------



## Betsy (Nov 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> This conviction i meant was 5 years ago though. The PFA stance seems to have changed since then *and Hodgson has not said anything this time despite his higher profile role*.


Has anybody in football said anything publicly about this,one way or the other?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2014)

Betsy said:


> Has anybody in football said anything publicly about this,one way or the other?


Not so you'd notice.


----------



## andysays (Nov 14, 2014)

marty21 said:


> it is huge profile - discussed on Question Time, regularly in the main news buletins



I know, but it's huge profile *because* of what Evans has done and is continuing to do


----------



## belboid (Nov 14, 2014)

andysays said:


> You'd think so, but surely then the thing to do would be to keep his head down for the time being, rather than continuing to ensure that the story of him as an unrepentant rapist is in the news every day


he needs to get into a state whereby he's fit enough to sign as soon as his appeal is heard, i guess


----------



## marty21 (Nov 14, 2014)

dp?


----------



## andysays (Nov 14, 2014)

belboid said:


> he needs to get into a state whereby he's fit enough to sign as soon as his appeal is heard, i guess



Or he *thinks* he needs to do that. 

This behaviour just strikes me as another facet of his arrogance, thinking only about himself and complete lack of remorse/responsibility, which ultimately is likely to prevent him from getting back where he wants to be, at least I hope it is.


----------



## The Pale King (Nov 14, 2014)

andysays said:


> Or he *thinks* he needs to do that.
> 
> This behaviour just strikes me as another facet of his arrogance, thinking only about himself and complete lack of remorse/responsibility, which ultimately is likely to prevent him from getting back where he wants to be, at least I hope it is.


 
Yes. He seems unable to think of himself as a rapist, to understand what he did and try to make amends for it, and he is being enabled in this denialism by the people around him. His self-image is more important than the safety/security/peace of mind of his victim, whom he still treats as though she is worth nothing and beneath normal human consideration.


----------



## christonabike (Nov 14, 2014)

I can't see how he can become a professional footballer again

They are usually contracted to do so many hours of charity, community and youth work, which he will not be able to fulfill

I agree that people who have served their time should be rehabilitated, and able work again to make a living
However, a convicted rapist would not be allowed to return to their old occupation of, say, nursery school teacher, as it would not be appropriate and this, I feel, is the case here

This is where football clubs could take a stand


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> So she was smashed as in really drunk but concious or smashed as in passed out when evans raped her?


Only Evans, McDonald and possibly their two mates know that. 

This is where the judgement seems inconsistent to me. She could consent to McDonald while drunk, but not to Evans while in the same state. In sentencing, the judge said this: '
"The complainant was extremely intoxicated. CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend. She was in no condition to have sexual intercourse."

But from what I can tell, that was not the verdict of the jury. The verdict of the jury was that she did consent to McDonald while that drunk, or at least he had good reason to think she had. 

She woke up not knowing where she was, not remembering going to the hotel, and convinced her drink had been spiked. She had not experienced an alcohol blackout before, but her drinking the night before is consistent with having had one - four double vodkas and a sambuca in quick succession is a recipe for a possible blackout. 

That doesn't say much either way about the state she had been in in the hotel room. But even by Evans' version, these two used her and threw her away. Taking her to a hotel for sex then abandoning her there was a despicable thing to do. Then he rather sealed his own fate, I think, by trying to make out she was a liar in court. At the very, very least, there is a big problem with the attitude towards women displayed by Evans, McDonald and their two mates. Even their version of events shows them to have acted in a very nasty way.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 14, 2014)

christonabike said:


> This is where football clubs could take a stand



I seriously doubt that. If they can allow other footballers to return to the fray who have been convicted of other crimes back into the game-not to mention the behaviour of other footballers like John Terry and Suarez with their racism I'd suggest we can expect very little from the clubs.


----------



## andysays (Nov 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Only Evans, McDonald and possibly their two mates know that.
> 
> This is where the judgement seems inconsistent to me. She could consent to McDonald while drunk, but not to Evans while in the same state. ...



As I understand it, and as was covered extensively earlier in the thread, the two verdicts depended not on whether the victim actually gave consent (she couldn't remember giving consent to either) but on the legal question of whether each defendant could have had a reasonable belief that she consented. 

If you go back and read the first few pages of the thread, it should be reasonably clear.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 14, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> This is all just about shite sentencing.
> 
> Once someone's served their time they should be considered rehabilitated and able to continue their employment. If they're not rehabilitated they shouldn't be released. Evans clearly isn't if he still thinks he didn't rape the woman.
> 
> So his sentence should be extended.



Thats dodgy territory surely? Evans may actually believe or has convinced himself of his innocence-in fact plenty of people plead their innocence-I dont think pleading your innocence is the basis for extending a sentence after already being sentenced by due process.

Unless of course one of the measures of rehabilitation is an admittance of guilt for the parole board?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2014)

andysays said:


> As I understand it, and as was covered extensively earlier in the thread, the two verdicts depended not on whether the victim actually gave consent (she couldn't remember giving consent to either) but on the legal question of whether each defendant could have had a reasonable belief that she consented.
> 
> If you go back and read the first few pages of the thread, it should be reasonably clear.


Yes, I know. It still doesn't really square up for me. Sounds to me that the judge had prepared to sentence both of them. We're in dangerous territory here with the idea that merely agreeing to go to a hotel with someone is taken to be consent to sex.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 14, 2014)

andysays said:


> As I understand it, and as was covered extensively earlier in the thread, the two verdicts depended not on whether the victim actually gave consent (she couldn't remember giving consent to either) but on the legal question of whether each defendant could have had a reasonable belief that she consented.
> 
> If you go back and read the first few pages of the thread, it should be reasonably clear.




What I find strange is that consent can stick and is written in stone throughout an evening-even when its clear her state of mind deteriorated as time wore on? So if the Judge is suggesting from the cctv footage she clearly wasnt in a state to give consent prior to the rape then surely that should apply to the first footballer?

Whats clear to me is that a victim does not waiver their right to say no up to AND including post penetration and consent really is highly questionable when some is pissed and becomes more so worse for wear throughout an evening.

Unfortunately the law does not see it that way.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 14, 2014)

> Police are investigating after a Twitter user wrote that he hoped Ched Evans raped Jessica Ennis-Hill.
> 
> On Thursday the athlete said she would want her name removed from a stand named after her by Sheffield United if the club re-signs the convicted rapist.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 14, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> Thats dodgy territory surely? Evans may actually believe or has convinced himself of his innocence-in fact plenty of people plead their innocence-I dont think pleading your innocence is the basis for extending a sentence after already being sentenced by due process.
> 
> Unless of course one of the measures of rehabilitation is an admittance of guilt for the parole board?



He's been let out 1/2 way through his 5 year sentence.

He's a rapist.

He doesn't think that he's done anything wrong, other than cheat on his girlfriend.

Would you think it's safe to release a rapist early when he doesn't even acknowledge that he has raped?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 14, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> What I find strange is that consent can stick and is written in stone throughout an evening-even when its clear her state of mind deteriorated as time wore on? So if the Judge is suggesting from the cctv footage she clearly wasnt in a state to give consent prior to the rape then surely that should apply to the first footballer?
> 
> Whats clear to me is that a victim does not waiver their right to say no up to AND including post penetration and consent really is highly questionable when some is pissed and becomes more so worse for wear throughout an evening.
> 
> Unfortunately the law does not see it that way.



Read the thread, carefully. This has all been covered.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 14, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He's been let out 1/2 way through his 5 year sentence.
> 
> He's a rapist.
> 
> ...




Its not what I think. Its what a parole board thinks. Spymaster seems to be suggesting because he's protesting his innocence he shouldnt have been released-Im not even sure if thats taken into consideration when a prisoner is released or not.

Im just questioning whether thats grounds enough to extend a sentence post conviction? I have no idea really


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 14, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Read the thread, carefully. This has all been covered.



I was hoping others could fill me in-I havent read the thread in it entirety


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 14, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> Its not what I think. Its what a parole board thinks. Spymaster seems to be suggesting because he's protesting his innocence he shouldnt have been released-Im not even sure if thats taken into consideration when a prisoner is released or not.
> 
> Im just questioning whether thats grounds enough to extend a sentence post conviction? I have no idea really



It's not really what the parole board thing either. It's standard procedure and there must be extreme extenuating circumstances not to let him out 1/2 way through.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 14, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It's not really what the parole board thing either. It's standard procedure and there must be extreme extenuating circumstances not to let him out 1/2 way through.




Like I say I have no idea.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 14, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> Like I say I have no idea.



Frightens me. Sentences for rape seem far too low as it is; five years, out in two and half just doesn't seem right for a crime that often has a profound effect on the victim for life. Unlike Spymaster I'm not a hang'em merchant, but I really do think that the starting point for rape should be at least 10 years and in all cases close monitoring for life.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 14, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Frightens me. Sentences for rape seem far too low as it is; five years, out in two and half just doesn't seem right for a crime that often has a profound effect on the victim for life. Unlike Spymaster I'm not a hang'em merchant, *but I really do think that the starting point for rape should be at least 10 years and in all cases close monitoring for life*.



That is something I agree with wholeheartedly. Rape is the one crime a perpetrator is highly likely to evade justice for and the entire narrative around rape really concerns me.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 14, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Frightens me. Sentences for rape seem far too low as it is; five years, out in two and half just doesn't seem right for a crime that often has a profound effect on the victim for life. Unlike Spymaster I'm not a hang'em merchant, but I really do think that the starting point for rape should be at least 10 years and in all cases close monitoring for life.



I don't advocate hanging rapists (unless they murder), but yes, as I said back in the thread, first offence 10 years, second offence life.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 14, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> the entire narrative around rape really concerns me.



Set aside an hour and read the thread, a number of people out themselves as quite rapey


----------



## andysays (Nov 14, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> What I find strange is that consent can stick and is written in stone throughout an evening-even when its clear her state of mind deteriorated as time wore on? So if the Judge is suggesting from the cctv footage she clearly wasnt in a state to give consent prior to the rape then surely that should apply to the first footballer?
> 
> Whats clear to me is that a victim does not waiver their right to say no up to AND including post penetration and consent really is highly questionable when some is pissed and becomes more so worse for wear throughout an evening.
> 
> Unfortunately the law does not see it that way.



I agree with your second paragraph 100%.

But in this specific case, there is no suggestion that the victim did say no - she can't remember if she gave consent or explicitly declined/withdrew consent. Therefore the conclusion of the jury, based on the info they had, was that it was reasonable for the first guy to think she had given consent but not for Evans to think that. 

Whether we think the law is correct or not, I think it's important that we understand what the law currently is and how it was applied in this case, giving one guilty and one not guilty verdict.


----------



## andysays (Nov 14, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Frightens me. Sentences for rape seem far too low as it is; five years, out in two and half just doesn't seem right for a crime that often has a profound effect on the victim for life. Unlike Spymaster I'm not a hang'em merchant, but I really do think that the starting point for rape should be at least 10 years and in all cases close monitoring for life.



While I'm inclined to agree with you that sentences for rape should be longer, I think in discussing this (or any) specific case it can be confusing to talk too much about what we think the law should be rather than what it actually is.

The position here appears to be that an unrepentant rapist, who is even in denial about the fact that he raped, has been released after the most minimal amount of time served. Possibly the fact that sex offender programmes are in short supply has contributed to this (as ViolentPanda has suggested), but even with current sentencing policy, I'm struggling to see how he could have been released so early.


----------



## Athos (Nov 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Only Evans, McDonald and possibly their two mates know that.
> 
> This is where the judgement seems inconsistent to me. She could consent to McDonald while drunk, but not to Evans while in the same state. In sentencing, the judge said this: '
> "The complainant was extremely intoxicated. CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend. She was in no condition to have sexual intercourse."
> ...



You need to remember that, to secure a conviction, there are two essential elements; both must be present.  So, the fact that the jury found Evans guilty means they concluded (beyond reasonable doubt) that *she had not consented* to sex with him (presumably because she lacked the capacity to do so, as a result of voluntary intoxication), *and* that *he did not reasonably believe that she had consented* to sex with him. The fact that they found McDonald not guilty *does not mean they concluded that the victim was capable of consenting to sex with him* (in fact, it's almost inconceivable that they could have come to that conclusion, given the very short time between the two instances of sex), *but, rather, that* (regardless of the lack of actual consent)* he had reasonably believed that she had consented*.  In short, from all the circumstances McDonald was entitled to think she wanted sex with him, but that Evans had no reason to believe she wanted to have sex with him, too; why would he?  She hadn't gone home with him - he just happened to sneak into the room!  There is no inconsistency in those two positions.

Though I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that McDonald was entitled to think she'd consented to sex simply because she'd gone back to his room, given that it appears that the jury believed that her level of intoxication was so high as to have negated her capacity to consent to sex with Evans a short time later.  (Strictly speaking, there's the possibility that their verdict was based on the fact that she had not even purported to consent, but that would be an odd conclusion in the light of the evidence of the two defendants that she had, and absent any evidence from her to the contrary.)


----------



## toggle (Nov 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, I know. It still doesn't really square up for me. Sounds to me that the judge had prepared to sentence both of them. We're in dangerous territory here with the idea that merely agreeing to go to a hotel with someone is taken to be consent to sex.



that's the way it's been like for a long time. rapoists have gotten away with it on far, far dodgier grounds.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 14, 2014)

It is dodgy - though clearly if she is conscious enough to verbally withdraw consent, or if she passes out cold, he should no longer have reasonable belief that she is consenting.  

And i suspect if the woman here was testifying that she actually withdrew consent, or if she was saying she had completely passed out - Evans' mate would have been locked up too.  But in this case she very clearly says she doesn't know what happened.


----------



## toggle (Nov 14, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> It is dodgy - though clearly if she is conscious enough to verbally withdraw consent, or if she passes out cold, he should no longer have reasonable belief that she is consenting.
> 
> And i suspect if the woman here was testifying that she actually withdrew consent, or if she was saying she had completely passed out - Evans' mate would have been locked up too.  But in this case she very clearly says she doesn't know what happened.



depends. I think the fact she didn't remember is the reason there was a conviction. so there's none of the case that was he said/she said so the defence couldn't effectively push the line she was a liar, as happens in so many cases.


----------



## CyberRose (Nov 14, 2014)

I


spanglechick said:


> It is dodgy - though clearly if she is conscious enough to verbally withdraw consent, or if she passes out cold, he should no longer have reasonable belief that she is consenting.
> 
> And i suspect if the woman here was testifying that she actually withdrew consent, or if she was saying she had completely passed out - Evans' mate would have been locked up too.  But in this case she very clearly says she doesn't know what happened.


I think her answering to pretty much all questions in court was "I can't remember"

Many a times have I woke up after a night out not knowing how I'd gotten home or where the kabab strewn across the floor came from, it certainly doesn't mean I'd passed out at any stage


----------



## likesfish (Nov 14, 2014)

Get pissed pick up a girl simply pissed fall into bed one thing
 Letting your mate have twos up totally diffrent


----------



## hash tag (Nov 14, 2014)

Hopefully, a major factor in taking him back or not is money. As I understand, 2 spinsors have said they would play no further part. This could also influence other sponsors. As I said a day or two back, i have written to the head honch at addidas urging them to seriously consider their position.
The arrogance is unbelievable...3 hifh profile patrons have pulled out, the world famous jess ennis has said she would follow. 2 sponsors have said they will walk, 160,000 have signed a petition...what will it take for him/the club to get the message?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2014)

toggle said:


> depends. I think the fact she didn't remember is the reason there was a conviction. so there's none of the case that was he said/she said so the defence couldn't effectively push the line she was a liar, as happens in so many cases.


My understanding is that they tried to make out she was a liar in any case. She's the one person whose testimony makes complete sense, tbh. I have precious little time or sympathy for Evans, whatever her state of consciousness at the time. He and his mates are a bunch of entitled wankers who did not think about the woman's wellbeing for one second. There are certain aspects of this conviction that do sit uneasily with me - and his version of events does at least appear to be plausible - but really it couldn't have happened to a nastier guy. And given that Evans went down, McDonald was very fucking lucky not to follow him. 

If (and please note the if - I'm not saying I believe him) what Evans is saying is true, perhaps if he hadn't left a drunk woman alone in a strange hotel after fucking her, if he'd done the decent thing and made sure she got home ok, maybe none of this would have happened.


----------



## Betsy (Nov 14, 2014)

Have just seen on the BBC paper's programme that The Sun is claiming an exclusive in tomorrow's edition saying that "Rapist Ched Evan's bid to re-join Sheffield United will be axed this weekend after the furious response to his planned comeback"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 15, 2014)

Athos said:


> You need to remember that, to secure a conviction, there are two essential elements; both must be present.  So, the fact that the jury found Evans guilty means they concluded (beyond reasonable doubt) that *she had not consented* to sex with him (presumably because she lacked the capacity to do so, as a result of voluntary intoxication), *and* that *he did not reasonably believe that she had consented* to sex with him. The fact that they found McDonald not guilty *does not mean they concluded that the victim was capable of consenting to sex with him* (in fact, it's almost inconceivable that they could have come to that conclusion, given the very short time between the two instances of sex), *but, rather, that* (regardless of the lack of actual consent)* he had reasonably believed that she had consented*.  In short, from all the circumstances McDonald was entitled to think she wanted sex with him, but that Evans had no reason to believe she wanted to have sex with him, too; why would he?  She hadn't gone home with him - he just happened to sneak into the room!  There is no inconsistency in those two positions.
> 
> Though I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that McDonald was entitled to think she'd consented to sex simply because she'd gone back to his room, given that it appears that the jury believed that her level of intoxication was so high as to have negated her capacity to consent to sex with Evans a short time later.  (Strictly speaking, there's the possibility that their verdict was based on the fact that she had not even purported to consent, but that would be an odd conclusion in the light of the evidence of the two defendants that she had, and absent any evidence from her to the contrary.)


I know what the conviction was based on. I'm guessing I have rather less faith in the judicial system than you. In this case, I think it is possible that Evans has been convicted harshly. But far more often, rapists have got away with it by portraying the victims as sluts, etc. Those cases where the rapist got away with it were also weighed up in this sententious manner.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2014)

lbj said:
			
		

> I think it is possible that Evans has been convicted harshly



Over and over and over


----------



## Athos (Nov 15, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I know what the conviction was based on. I'm guessing I have rather less faith in the judicial system than you. In this case, I think it is possible that Evans has been convicted harshly. But far more often, rapists have got away with it by portraying the victims as sluts, etc. Those cases where the rapist got away with it were also weighed up in this sententious manner.



On what basis do you think the conviction may have been harsh?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 15, 2014)

Athos said:


> On what basis do you think the conviction may have been harsh?


His story is plausible. She doesn't remember. Another jury may have found differently. Such is the crap shoot that passes for a justice system.


----------



## Athos (Nov 15, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> His story is plausible. She doesn't remember. Another jury may have found differently. Such is the crap shoot that passes for a justice system.



Almost every rapist could cobble together a story that is plausible.  And on the basis that another jury might have acquitted, you can say that it's possible that any conviction was harsh.  But the fact is that the jury (which, unlike you, heard all of the evidence) were convinced of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.  I don't know why you'd want to undermine that by suggesting the jury may have got it wrong when you haven't heard the evidence they did.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 15, 2014)

As I said, you appear to have far more faith in the system than I do. Tell that to Mark Duggan's mother. Courts and juries get shit wrong all the time. 'the jury found this and we should trust them' doesn't wash with me. And it shouldn't with you.


----------



## Athos (Nov 15, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> As I said, you appear to have far more faith in the system than I do. Tell that to Mark Duggan's mother.



Because the power dynamic between this young woman and a premiership footballer is the same as the power dynamic between the MPS and a black man alleged to be a criminal?!  (Not to mention the entirely different nature of, and standard of proof in, coronial proceedings.)


----------



## Athos (Nov 15, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Courts and juries get shit wrong all the time. 'the jury found this and we should trust them' doesn't wash with me. And it shouldn't with you.



I don't say we should trust all juries unquestioningly.  But, in this case, there is nothing to suggest that they got the decision wrong.  So i wonder why so many people are so determined to question this verdict.


----------



## trashpony (Nov 15, 2014)

Athos said:


> nothing to suggest that they got the decision wrong


Apart from Evans and his family and the general rapey culture in the UK


----------



## Athos (Nov 15, 2014)

trashpony said:


> Apart from Evans and his family and the general rapey culture in the UK



Yes, I should have said no evidence (except the accused's testimony) to suggest the jury got it wrong.

But, sadly, there's still plenty who try to excuse what he did; including by hinting that he was harshly treated, without being able to point to anything concrete.  As if this was a grey area -  not like those 'proper' rapes where men in balaclavas jump out with knives, and drag virgins into bushes.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 15, 2014)

Athos said:


> Yes, I should have said no evidence (except the accused's testimony) to suggest the jury got it wrong.


That's not entirely true.



> While it was taking place the porter went to check what was happening. He waited outside the room for a while and concluded from the noises that he could hear within the room that a couple were having sexual intercourse. No other concerns were raised in his mind.


[source]

I think the porter also stated that he heard him ask her for aural sex, but I can't find that report now. That to me doesn't really tally with the idea that she was either passed out, or wasn't consenting.

The jury seems to have decided this essentially on how plausible they found each of the defendants versions of what happened, and how they claimed the girl had consented, so it is a pretty grey area really, the jury could easily have gone the other way.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 15, 2014)

free spirit said:


> That's not entirely true.
> 
> [source]
> 
> ...



Testimony of a man outside a door. Listening in on a drunken conversation. You are a rape apologist. You disgust me.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 15, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Testimony of a man outside a door. Listening in on a drunken conversation. You are a rape apologist. You disgust me.


oh fuck off.

I'm someone who doesn't agree that this was rape after reviewing all the available evidence. There's a difference, but apparently not on a site where the issue is entirely black or white.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 15, 2014)

free spirit said:


> oh fuck off.
> 
> I'm someone who doesn't agree that this was rape after reviewing all the available evidence. There's a difference, but apparently not on a site where the issue is entirely black or white.



I always thought you were one of the good ones. No more. Fuck you.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 15, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> You are a rape apologist. You disgust me.
> 
> I always thought you were one of the good ones. No more. Fuck you.


and I didn't think you'd be the type who'd shut down any debate or discussion in that way either.

juries spoken, must have got it right eh?

actually, fuck knows why I'm bothering with someone who's just come out with that shit.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 15, 2014)

free spirit said:


> and I didn't think you'd be the type who'd shut down any debate or discussion in that way either.
> 
> juries spoken, must have got it right eh?
> 
> actually, fuck knows why I'm bothering with someone who's just come out with that shit.



Likewise. Take a good look at yourself and look what you are trying to defend. Then feel fucking ashamed.


----------



## Humberto (Nov 15, 2014)

Whats Ched's defence again?


----------



## free spirit (Nov 15, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Likewise. Take a good look at yourself and look what you are trying to defend. Then feel fucking ashamed.


I have, and as far as I'm concerned I'm defending someone who I consider is likely to have been wrongly convicted, and pointing out the danger of convictions being made on this specific basis.

That's not saying I agree with what he actually did, or have any sympathy or liking for that sort of culture / way of treating women, as I don't, it's the complete opposite of what I'm about really.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 15, 2014)

Humberto said:


> Whats Ched's defence again?


that she consented.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 15, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I have, and as far as I'm concerned I'm defending someone who I consider is likely to have been wrongly convicted.



This is the nub. You think it's okay to have sex with incapacitated women you don't know. I think it's rape. As did the jury. Your views are vile, dangerous and criminal. You have been lucky up to now. But you won't always be lucky.


----------



## trashpony (Nov 15, 2014)

free spirit said:


> oh fuck off.
> 
> I'm someone who doesn't agree that this was rape after reviewing all the available evidence. There's a difference, but apparently not on a site where the issue is entirely black or white.


You weren't in court and your 'evidence' is based on the twisted lies on Evans' disgusting site. You're a vile rape apologist and don't you fucking DARE make out you're some knight of justice.


----------



## Athos (Nov 15, 2014)

free spirit said:


> That's not entirely true.
> 
> [source]
> 
> ...



The fact he heard people having sex does not undermine the fact it was a rape.

Where is the evidence that she asked for it?


----------



## likesfish (Nov 15, 2014)

Pickng up a drunken girl and having sex in a hotel room plausable.
 That said girl is happy with your mate having ago as well yeah that only happens in porn movies
 Fact both blokes fucked off tends to assume they knew they'd done wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2014)

Astonishing what you find breeding under the l_iberal socially progressive rocks_ isn't it? Or at least what breeds when it's cut free from any wider collective social discipline. What horrors _consent _or _free contrac_t hides. And how often they look like _power_.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 15, 2014)

Athos said:


> But, sadly, there's still plenty who try to excuse what he did; including by hinting that he was harshly treated, without being able to point to anything concrete.  As if this was a grey area -  not like those 'proper' rapes where men in balaclavas jump out with knives, and drag virgins into bushes.



Try telling that to the Torygraph:



> *Ched Evans: Sorry, but all rapes are not the same*
> *The story of Sheffield United footballer Ched Evans is far more problematic than that of a predator in a dark underpass*



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ans-Sorry-but-all-rapes-are-not-the-same.html


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 15, 2014)

It's true that not all rapes are the same, but what that article is actually implying is that some rapes are objectively less bad than others. Every crime is different and every victim will react differently, but the justice system has never been about quantifying the harm caused and punishing people accordingly. The point is that when you commit a crime like this, you don't give a fuck what effect it will have on your victim and that's what you should be punished for.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It's not really what the parole board thing either. It's standard procedure and there must be extreme extenuating circumstances not to let him out 1/2 way through.



You have to pretty much have been a disciplinary nightmare _a la_ Charles Bronson to fail to get the full remission of sentence for "good behaviour". Even most offences inside short of physical violence are dealt with via being sent to the punishment block for a maximum of a week, or being put before the Governor.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 15, 2014)

A friend of mine made the point last night that athletes who get caught doing drugs have their medals taken off them and are never allowed to play again and professionals such as doctors and lawyers convicted of various offences get struck off and never allowed to practice again. There is never much controversy of this. It is generally accepted. Yet there is huge controversy ove this. What in fuck makes it different here?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Frightens me. Sentences for rape seem far too low as it is; five years, out in two and half just doesn't seem right for a crime that often has a profound effect on the victim for life. Unlike Spymaster I'm not a hang'em merchant, but I really do think that the starting point for rape should be at least 10 years and in all cases close monitoring for life.



The singling biggest problem with regard to harsher sentencing, is that harsh sentences are (at least in liberal democracies) often reflected in fewer convictions - juries are less likely to deliver guilty verdicts nowadays if there's an automatic high tariff. The single best move any government could make would be to trim remission back to 1/3 or 1/4 of sentence, but there aren't enough prisons and prison officers to cope with that (the current remission system was actually constructed at least partially to relieve "population pressures" in prisons  ).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> A friend of mine made the point last night that athletes who get caught doing drugs have their medals taken off them and are never allowed to play again and professionals such as doctors and lawyers convicted of various offences get struck off and never allowed to practice again. There is never much controversy of this. It is generally accepted. Yet there is huge controversy ove this. What in fuck makes it different here?



There's no *actual* difference, but IMO what makes this "different" for Evans and his advisors is the potential millions of pounds of earnings from salary and sponsorship that won't now be coming his (and his advisors') way.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 15, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's no *actual* difference, but IMO what makes this "different" for Evans and his advisors is the potential millions of pounds of earnings from salary and sponsorship that won't now be coming his (and his advisors') way.


Athletes don't make as much money I guess.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Athletes don't make as much money I guess.


Athletes are very rarely banned for life for doping as it goes. I think they should be but that's OT.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Athletes don't make as much money I guess.



Athletes are still effectively "amateurs", albeit sometimes amateurs with lucrative sponsorship deals.


----------



## comrade spurski (Nov 15, 2014)

litliebabyjesus said:


> As I said, you appear to have far more faith in the system than I do. Tell that to Mark Duggan's mother. Courts and juries get shit wrong all the time. 'the jury found this and we should trust them' doesn't wash with me. And it shouldn't with you.


The police lied in the Duggan case...witnesses directly contradict their version...there were discrepancies about whether there was a gun and where it was found etc...every other misjustice case has similar lies and cover ups from the police...the birmingham 6, guilford 4, tottenham 3, Maquire 7, the brazilian guy on the tube etc. etc.
There are no such inconsistencies in this case...so please stop with this bollocks of "tell it to mark duggans mother" and "I have less faith in the police"... a jury was not lied to, the rapist cunt was not beaten and threatened into making a confession...he is simply a convicted rapist and you sound like a conspiracy loon.


----------



## Athos (Nov 15, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's true that not all rapes are the same, but what that article is actually implying is that some rapes are objectively less bad than others. Every crime is different and every victim will react differently, but the justice system has never been about quantifying the harm caused and punishing people accordingly. The point is that when you commit a crime like this, you don't give a fuck what effect it will have on your victim and that's what you should be punished for.




The act of rape *is* the same in every case: it is having sex with someone without the reasonable belief that they consent.  And, of itself, that's always a heinous act.

The fact that some rapes might involve additional aggravating features which warrant further condemnation doesn't detract from the fact that, in essence, the nature of rape is the same in every case.

We should be very careful about creating some heirarchy of rape, as it plays into the hands of apologists who suggest that what Evans did isn't a 'real' rape.


----------



## toggle (Nov 15, 2014)

Athos said:


> The act of rape *is* the same in every case: it is having sex with someone without the reasonable belief that they consent.  And, of itself, that's always a heinous act.
> 
> The fact that some rapes might involve additional aggravating features which warrant further condemnation doesn't detract from the fact that, in essence, the nature of rape is the same in every case.
> 
> We should be very careful about creating some heirarchy of rape, as it plays into the hands of apologists who suggest that what Evans did isn't a 'real' rape.



This. exactly this. 

it astounds me that there is such a common attitude that aquaintance rape is seen by so many as a lesser rape. it's not actual rape-rape. as though it's actually possible to quantify a difference between an attack on the street ending in nonconsensual sex and a betrayal of trust ending in nonconsensual sex. they are the same crime, despite the differing circumstances.


----------



## topher25 (Nov 15, 2014)

Sorry, if this has been covered but was Evans' defense? Did he claim that she was able to consent?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2014)

topher25 said:


> Sorry, if this has been covered but was Evans' defense? Did he claim that she was able to consent?


Oh ha ha. Very funny. So glad we're attracting people like you to the boards now.


----------



## cesare (Nov 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Astonishing what you find breeding under the l_iberal socially progressive rocks_ isn't it? Or at least what breeds when it's cut free from any wider collective social discipline. What horrors _consent _or _free contrac_t hides. And how often they look like _power_.


The same posters posted similarly on the Assange threads too.


----------



## topher25 (Nov 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Oh ha ha. Very funny. So glad we're attracting people like you to the boards now.



Eh? What's funny?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2014)

cesare said:


> The same posters posted similarly on the Assange threads too.



Yep. Can't say i'm shocked.


----------



## cesare (Nov 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yep. Can't say i'm shocked.


Aye.


----------



## Part 2 (Nov 15, 2014)

The ched evans website seems to have gone quiet given all the recent media attention.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 15, 2014)

Chip Barm said:


> The ched evans website seems to have gone quiet given all the recent media attention.


 It's weird really, things are running against him getting a contract at sheffield, with a couple of patrons and sponsors threatening to leave the club. But at the same time the way the story seems to be playing out in newspaper stories and comments, wider discussions and the like, the 'it's not really rape' line seems to gaining ground.    That's why it's such an important case, as people have said on here, it _could and should_ have the potential to strengthen the idea of explicit consent and capacity to give consent - but equally it could stregthen quite reactionary and narrow readings of what rape it.


----------



## Dowie (Nov 15, 2014)

Has he had his new review/appeal yet? Does anyone know on what basis he could be appealing again - IIRC he'd already appealed the conviction and had the appeal thrown out.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 15, 2014)

Dowie said:


> Has he had his new review/appeal yet? Does anyone know on what basis he could be appealing again - IIRC he'd already appealed the conviction and had the appeal thrown out.


Review is set to get under way anytime now. An application has been made by the new legal team to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and has asked that the review be prioritised.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/crime...-footballer-recruits-new-legal-team-1-6239430


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 15, 2014)

Daily Mail are reporting Sheffield will not be offering him a new contract. They are apparently "shocked" at the level of public outrage over this, and have taken their time to decide he will not be playing for the club.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 15, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> Daily Mail are reporting Sheffield will not be offering him a new contract. They are apparently "shocked" at the level of public outrage over this, and have taken their time to decide he will not be playing for the club.


ffs how can they seriously be shocked about this?

If he had shown some kind of remorse and acceptance of what he did it would be one thing, but he hasn't.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 15, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> <snip> They are apparently "shocked" at the level of public outrage over this, and have taken their time to decide he will not be playing for the club.


Somebody tell the people running Sheffield United that water is wet, in case they haven't realised that either.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 15, 2014)

What a bunch of fucking dirty calculating cowards.  From their statement, they were clearly edging towards giving him a contract when the fuss died down:


> The Club agrees with the recent statements of The PFA, to the effect that professional footballers should be treated as equals before the law, including in circumstances where they seek to return to work following periods of incarceration. The Club rejects the notion that society should seek to impose extrajudicial or post-term penalties on anyone. In a nation of laws, served by an elected parliament and duly constituted courts of law, there can be no place for 'mob justice'. The Club believes that the only penalties following from a conviction on any charge should be those set forth in law and deemed appropriate by a court of competent jurisdiction


Whilst I (obviously) don't think he should have got another contract, this climb down by the club makes them even worse than if they'd had the courage of their convictions and re-employed him.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 16, 2014)

I think Ennis-Hill asking for her name to be removed from the stand might have been a final straw for them. It's the sort of thing that attracts a lot of attention. Likely not the only thing that had an effect, but still.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 16, 2014)

Vintage Paw said:


> I think Ennis-Hill asking for her name to be removed from the stand might have been a final straw for them. It's the sort of thing that attracts a lot of attention. Likely not the only thing that had an effect, but still.


Definitely. They will have worried  about sponsor's reaction but could have felt that this would die down and they'd get new sponsors or the existing ones would stick it out, but this would have been a permanent thing, and somewhere at an emotional level they are now choosing between Jessica and Ched, and that's going to have a different kind of effect to the business decision around sponsors.


----------



## Dowie (Nov 16, 2014)

Problem is, if this new legal team somehow wins this new appeal then I wonder how the press reaction will change... people can no longer protests against the signing of a 'convicted rapist' - could easily switch to being a a victim of a 'miscarriage of justice' as his PR team are trying to portray him as at the moment. His co-defender isn't having many issues with negative publicity stopping his career and everyone now knows what they both got up to. United can carry on letting him train and then wait and see if he does manage to get his conviction quashed... then, if that occurs, after some swing in publicity his way they can sign him... I'm sure they were already aware of the negative publicity should they sign him now, it is clearly a no-go - I'm assuming that part of the reason they're letting him train is that they believe there is some chance of his next appeal succeeding, in which case, with a bit of extra PR portraying him as a 'victim' they can then sign him.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 16, 2014)

He isn't having an appeal as such.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 16, 2014)

Dowie said:


> Problem is, if this new legal team somehow wins this new appeal then I wonder how the press reaction will change... people can no longer protests against the signing of a 'convicted rapist' - could easily switch to being a a victim of a 'miscarriage of justice' as his PR team are trying to portray him as at the moment. His co-defender isn't having many issues with negative publicity stopping his career and everyone now knows what they both got up to. United can carry on letting him train and then wait and see if he does manage to get his conviction quashed... then, if that occurs, after some swing in publicity his way they can sign him... I'm sure they were already aware of the negative publicity should they sign him now, it is clearly a no-go - I'm assuming that part of the reason they're letting him train is that they believe there is some chance of his next appeal succeeding, in which case, with a bit of extra PR portraying him as a 'victim' they can then sign him.


First, his appeal in 2012 was rejected.

As has been previously posted, there isn't currently an appeal to be heard. There is an application to make another appeal but that has not yet been decided.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 16, 2014)

JTG said:


> Who knows? Only Evans does.


Evan only knows.


----------



## Coolfonz (Nov 16, 2014)

Wilf said:


> What a bunch of fucking dirty calculating cowards.  From their statement, they were clearly edging towards giving him a contract when the fuss died down:
> 
> Whilst I (obviously) don't think he should have got another contract, this climb down by the club makes them even worse than if they'd had the courage of their convictions and re-employed him.



Within 'the club' there has probably been a lot of infighting and differences of opinion. It is because of actions by folk like Ennis-Hill - and others - that those who didn't want Evans back at the club may have won out. Be interesting (if this is the case) to see if any board members/coaches/staff leave the club in the next few months...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 16, 2014)

I wish people would stop calling Sheffield United "Sheffield" - there's other clubs in the city, at least two of them infinitely superior and if there's aclub that can be legitimately referred to as Sheffield it's Sheffield fc, the oldest club in the world.


----------



## JTG (Nov 16, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> I wish people would stop calling Sheffield United "Sheffield" - there's other clubs in the city, at least two of them infinitely superior


Yeah, Sheffield FC and Hallam FC are much classier outfits


----------



## marty21 (Nov 16, 2014)

Dowie said:


> His co-defender isn't having many issues with negative publicity stopping his career and everyone now knows what they both got up to.



Clayton McDonald is  currently playing for Southport in the conference - his career has not benefitted at all from being found not guilty - it has gone down hill since


----------



## JTG (Nov 16, 2014)

marty21 said:


> Clayton McDonald is  currently playing for Southport in the conference - his career has not benefitted at all from being found not guilty - it has gone down hill since


That's because he's crap


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 16, 2014)

JTG said:


> Yeah, Sheffield FC and Hallam FC are much classier outfits



This is of course true.


----------



## marty21 (Nov 16, 2014)

JTG said:


> That's because he's crap


probably that is the case too - never seen him play


----------



## CyberRose (Nov 16, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Somebody tell _the board of_ Sheffield _United_ that water is wet, in case they haven't realised that either.


Fixed for you, unless you're saying there's half a million thick cunts up here?


----------



## Greebo (Nov 16, 2014)

CyberRose said:


> Fixed for you, unless you're saying there's half a million thick cunts up here?


Fair enough *edits*


----------



## Athos (Nov 16, 2014)

Dowie said:


> Problem is, if this new legal team somehow wins this new appeal then I wonder how the press reaction will change... people can no longer protests against the signing of a 'convicted rapist' - could easily switch to being a a victim of a 'miscarriage of justice' as his PR team are trying to portray him as at the moment. His co-defender isn't having many issues with negative publicity stopping his career and everyone now knows what they both got up to. United can carry on letting him train and then wait and see if he does manage to get his conviction quashed... then, if that occurs, after some swing in publicity his way they can sign him... I'm sure they were already aware of the negative publicity should they sign him now, it is clearly a no-go - I'm assuming that part of the reason they're letting him train is that they believe there is some chance of his next appeal succeeding, in which case, with a bit of extra PR portraying him as a 'victim' they can then sign him.



If, notwithstanding i) the unanimous guilty verdict, ii) the fact that permission to appeal has been refused twice, and, iii) the lack of any obvious basis for asserting that the judge misdirected the jury, the CCRC decide that this case is a possible miscarriage of justice, such that it is referred to the Court of Appeal, and that appeal is successful, and the Court of Appeal acquits rather than orders a retrial, then, in the eyes of the law, he will be 'not guilty'.  He wouldn't be a convicted rapist; rather he'll be someone who spent two and half years in prison for a crime he didn't commit.  In which case, it'd be hard to maintain an argument that he shouldn't be re-signed.

But I'd be very, very surprised if that happened.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 16, 2014)

He's probably better off playing the Euromillions.


----------



## Athos (Nov 16, 2014)

Athos said:


> If, notwithstanding i) the unanimous guilty verdict, ii) the fact that permission to appeal has been refused twice, and, iii) the lack of any obvious basis for asserting that the judge misdirected the jury, the CCRC decide that this case is a possible miscarriage of justice, such that it is referred to the Court of Appeal, and that appeal is successful, and the Court of Appeal acquits rather than orders a retrial, then, in the eyes of the law, he will be 'not guilty'.  He wouldn't be a convicted rapist; rather he'll be someone who spent two and half years in prison for a crime he didn't commit.  In which case, it'd be hard to maintain an argument that he shouldn't be re-signed.
> 
> But I'd be very, very surprised if that happened.



To put it another way: if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 17, 2014)

I'm going to try as consisely as possible to explain my issue with this case once more.

The defence case was that the girl had verbally consented, as attested to by both men involved.

The prosecution case was essentially that whether or not she did give her consent was irrelevant because she was too drunk to be legally capable of consenting.



> Mr Philpotts said: "The prosecution say that she did not truly consent to that activity.
> 
> "She was in no fit state to consent.
> 
> "And we say that neither man reasonably believed she was consenting."



Consent has always been consent whether drunk or not, if someone clearly agrees to having sex with another person (and doesn't change their minds etc) then that should be viewed as being consensual sex, not rape.

In none of the previous cases that defined the case law on the issue of drunken consent / rape, had the accused claimed the woman had fully consented, nor had a witness to it, nor had no evidence at all given by the woman due to complete memory loss. In those previous cases the woman was determined to have been literally too drunk to either consent or properly indicate her lack of consent.

So we now have the situation where the law appears to be that consent when drunk is ok, but if someone who the CPS / police later judge to have been too drunk gives their consent, then this consent may later be judged to have not been valid consent by virtue of their level of drunkeness, particularly if it turns out that they can't remember either way what happened.

Or put simply;

*Previously*
If someone hadn't given their consent, and was drunk to the point where they weren't capable of either giving or refusing consent, then it would be rape.

*This case*
Even if someone has clearly given their consent, then if they're very drunk this consent could later be judged to not have been valid due to the level of drunkeness if it turns out that she was in a state of alcoholic blackout at the time and can't remember what happened.


In this entire thread nobody has managed to offer any clear explanation of how this is supposed to work, ie how anyone is supposed to be able to judge if the woman they're about to have sex with is too drunk for her consent to be judged to have been valid.

If people who're sober and giving this considerable thought can't explain how this is supposed to work, then it's unreasonable to expect that a drunk person should be able to make that determination when faced with another drunk person who's saying they want to have sex with them.

That's the wider context of my objection to this, it's to do with the basis of the prosecutions case and the wider implications of this if .their logic were to be applied more widely.

Note, this isn't specifically about whether to believe the statements of the 2 defendents or not, as the CPS prosecution case didn't really focus on that, instead making the case that her level of drunkeness was such that it meant she didn't have the capacity to truly consent anyway There's a.lso no evidence that she really was exceptionally drunk at the time this happened, it was about 2 hours after she'd had her last drink, and her blackout started an hour earlier at the takeaway, after which she was able to walk, get into a taxi, get out of a taxi and walk into the hotel etc. 

People have consensual one night stands while in alcoholic blackout all the time, it's part of that whole binge drinking culture. Should they all be judged now as having been rape situations because the woman can't have had the capacity to truely consent? 

If not, then neither should this case IMO.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 17, 2014)

trashpony said:


> You weren't in court and your 'evidence' is based on the twisted lies on Evans' disgusting site. You're a vile rape apologist and don't you fucking DARE make out you're some knight of justice.


it's not you know. I've only scanned that site once, then went to a fair amount of effort to check as many unbiased sources as I could find as I couldn't get my head around the basis on which he'd been prosecuted and found guilty.

I originally started attempting to have a discussion about the wider implications of the way the prosecution in the case had approached the issue of drunken consent / being too drunk to consent. It unfortunately seems pretty much impossible to have that discussion, which is a bit problematic as the law now appears to be clear as mud on this issue.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 17, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> This is the nub. You think it's okay to have sex with incapacitated women you don't know. I think it's rape. As did the jury. Your views are vile, dangerous and criminal. You have been lucky up to now. But you won't always be lucky.


I don't think it's ok to have sex with incapacitated women, that would rightly be rape.

I do think it's ok to have consensual sex with a drunk woman, and the law has always been that this is ok.

I object to a situation where the law has been used in such a way as to mean that if a woman actually consents while drunk, but not what would usually have been seen as being incapacitated, then there's a possibility that this could later be disregarded on the basis of her being judged to have been too drunk to have had the legal capacity to truly consent at that point.

But feel free to explain clearly at what point drunkenness now turns into someone being incapacitated if you're happy with the way the law has been applied here.


----------



## toggle (Nov 17, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I don't think it's ok to have sex with incapacitated women, that would rightly be rape.
> 
> I do think it's ok to have consensual sex with a drunk woman, and the law has always been that this is ok.
> 
> ...



As i believe has been said several times, a set point has not been made. ti's down to the jury to decide if, in their opinion, the prosecution has successfully made it's case that someone is incapacitated. 

if any 'point' needs to be discussed, it is this. - if you need a formula to tell you when someone is too drunk for it to be ok to stick your penis in them, then perhaps that activity is best left to those capable of more nuanced judgement and respect for their partners. that goes doubly so when you're responding to a text from a mate offering you seconds.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 17, 2014)

I can't seem to find a UK based definition, but these 2 definitions and explanations of incapacity through alcohol (or drugs) are pretty much how I've always understood it.



> Incapacitation is defined as the inability, temporarily or permanently, to give consent because the individual is mentally and/or physically helpless, asleep, unconscious, or unaware that sexual activity is occurring.





> *Assessing Incapacity*
> Physical incapacities are sometimes quite overt, and other times more subtle. Incapacitation is a subjective determination that will be made after the incident, in light of all the facts available. Incapacitation is subjective because people reach incapacitation in different ways and as the result of different stimuli. They exhibit incapacity in different ways. Incapacity is dependent on many or all of the following factors:
> 
> 
> ...



I don't see that someone who's bought a pizza, got into and out of a taxi, and walked into a hotel under her own steam, can then be said to be incapacitated through drink half an hour after arriving at the hotel on the basis of no other evidence, and where she'd not had anything to drink for 2 hours by that point, so if anything ought to have been sobering up rather than getting more drunk during that half an hour. Drunk yes, incapacitated no.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 17, 2014)

toggle said:


> As i believe has been said several times, a set point has not been made. ti's down to the jury to decide if, in their opinion, the prosecution has successfully made it's case that someone is incapacitated.
> 
> if any 'point' needs to be discussed, it is this. - if you need a formula to tell you when someone is too drunk for it to be ok to stick your penis in them, then perhaps that activity is best left to those capable of more nuanced judgement and respect for their partners. that goes doubly so when you're responding to a text from a mate offering you seconds.


If you can't explain it when sober, how do you expect anyone to be able to work out where that point is when drunk?

and bear in mind here I'm talking about a hypothetical situation in which the woman is actually verbally consenting to sex at the time.

I thought I understood this, but this case has thrown me as very little about her actions that were used as evidence by the CPS would have indicated to me that she should be considered to be incapacitated through alcohol to the extent where she shouldn't be judged to have had the legal capacity to consent if she actually did verbally consent (as alleged, and not really challenged).


----------



## free spirit (Nov 17, 2014)

I stumbled across this interesting paragraph in a 2006 consultation response by the Arts and Humanities Research Council Centre for Law, Gender and Sexuality.



> Setting the Boundaries(July 2000) recommended that a person was unable to consent when ‘too affected by alcohol...to give free agreement’ (2.10.9) yet this is not included as an evidential presumption under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.75.
> 
> This was apparently due to a concern, expressed by the then Home Secretary (in Hansard), about false allegations



So the government specifically didn't include this recommendation in the legislation, and yet the CPS seems to have basically taken the concept of 'capacity' and used it to achieve the same effect in this case.

It also agrees that the issue of how capacity / incapacitated is defined is problematic and recommended that it should be defined in statute.



> Emily Finch and Vanessa Munro’s research on rape suggests that, in the absence of further definition, mock jurors will interpret capacity in divergent ways, thereby creating different outcomes in factually analogous cases.





> A statutory definition of capacity would be informed and underpinned by an understanding that persons engaging in sexual practices have to understand not only the nature but also the consequences of their acts (e.g. at least sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy). Foresight of consequences, although notimpossible, is unlikely in the later stages of intoxication. Assessing when this stage is reached is something the law already does in the context of the defence of intoxication in crimes of specific intent



If the law on what constitutes someone being incapacitated through alcohol is going to be changed to include anyone who's slurring their words a bit / has fallen over once (in heels), then it should be done via parliament, and should be clearly explained and debated. It should not be done via case law with the CPS seeking to effectively implement a line of the original proposed legislation that had been removed prior to the law being passed.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 17, 2014)

Some more on the issue of capacity.



> The Sexual Offences Act 2003 does not give a definition of capacity. Surely this needs to be changed as the courts have no definition of capacity.
> 
> ‘Therefore they have to look for some kind of assistance at common law, although it is abundant that there are still no clear principles governing whether a person had the capacity or not to consent to sexual activity’ [26] .
> 
> ...



And here's a previous similar case to demonstrate how unclear this situation is legally.


> However concerns were raised after the case of R v Dougal [2005] Swansea Crown Court the judge directed the jury to enter a ‘not guilty’ plea purely because it was unable to prove that the complainant had not given consent due to her level of intoxication’



It would also seem that this confusion was recognised, and the government attempted to resolve it but their proposals were blocked by the judges.



> Government plans for changes in the law to boost rape conviction rates are in disarray after the judges who would have to put them into practice told ministers they oppose them.
> The Council of Circuit Judges, the influential body representing all 637 circuit judges in England and Wales, has dismissed all the proposals, including a measure to try to make it easier to convict in cases where the victim was binge-drinking.
> 
> But the judges have rejected all the principal proposals, which include:
> ...



So it really isn't just me who's struggling to work out what the actual law is supposed to be on this point. If everyone else on this thread has this completely sussed out, then please explain it as your lack of clear explanations so far indicates that actually you don't really understand it either, or can't explain it in a way that would apply to this case.

I do have a real problem with the idea that complete memory loss itself should be taken as evidence of lack of being incapacitated as IME the 2 things can be occur at very different points, particularly with people who're binge drinking with vodka redbull / vodka and coke etc or spirits and cocaine / speed etc as the alcohol can still block the formation of new memories, while the caffeine, sugar. coke, speed etc counteracts it and keeps them appearing pretty with it, lively, able to hold a conversation etc.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 17, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I'm going to try as consisely as possible to explain my issue with this case once more.
> 
> The defence case was that the girl had verbally consented, as attested to by both men involved.



Well they're hardly likely to claim otherwise, are they?


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 17, 2014)

She was so drunk she wet the fucking bed.  That on its own indicates to me that she was very drunk.  Maybe not to you. 

You seem to think a very high level of drunkenness should be needed before a person starts questioning the validity of consent that may have been given.  

The law would appear to disagree with you.  

It's pretty simple to the rest of us on this thread, though.  Is your partner drunk y/n?

If yes, how sure are you that they would be keen to shag you even if they weren't drunk?

If they willingly got into a cab with you and willingly went back to a hotel room with you, you're probably fair to assume that they are up for it.  

If, otoh, you have never met them, got a text message from a mate saying he'd "got one", but nothing in that text suggested her desire to meet you/have a threesome/have sex with a total stranger etc, and you turn up at the hotel and plan to have sex with this person pretty much straight away... But the person turns out to be drunk - then I'm afraid the only non-abusive outcome is to walk away because nothing in that scenario should give you reasonable belief that she would consent if she were sober.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 17, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I'm going to try as consisely as possible to explain my issue with this case once more.
> 
> The defence case was that the girl had verbally consented, as attested to by both men involved.
> 
> ...


Short of using breathalysers and having a legal limit like drink driving, you're asking for precision that isn't reasonable. It's always a judgement call based on someone's behaviour, and the better you know someone the easier it is to judge when they've had too much and need to be looked after/out for/taken home.

That call is harder to make the drunker you are, not just cos your senses are impaired but because apparent drunkenness is relative (ie: if you're very drunk, other people who are very drunk won't seem that drunk to you)

So the jury has to make a judgement call, just like someone on a night out. And they should (and imo did) take into account the different levels of difficulty the two men would have had making this judgement call

I was then going to talk about how it is the way in which the men behaved which makes the difference but spangles has said it so well just above me, I won't bother.


----------



## Athos (Nov 17, 2014)

free spirit, you still don't understand the legal concepts in question, and your position is made no stronger by selectively quoting various (largely irrelevant) sources.  Yet you continue to make false assertions about what the law was before this case, and what it was now.  It's been explained to you, at length, why you are wrong.  But you won't accept it.  Nor, apparently, will you accept that the consequence of this case is not that thousands of people will be criminalised by ordinary drunken sex, despite the fact that there's been no opening of the flood gates in the years since the judgment.

You clearly feel that you know better than others on this thread, the trial judge, the jury and the court of appeal, about the facts and legal argument in this case.  But you really don't.


----------



## killer b (Nov 17, 2014)

I'm not sure why you're persevering with this FS. It's like you weren't satisfied with smearing your faeces all over the floor & walls, now you're going for the ceiling too?


----------



## belboid (Nov 17, 2014)

Fuck off FS, your reactionary drivel has been ripped to pieces before. so stop lying and hoping some late comers are taken in by your rubbish.

Lets take one specific lie from you:

If people who're sober and giving this considerable thought can't explain how this is supposed to work, then it's unreasonable to expect that a drunk person should be able to make that determination when faced with another drunk person who's saying they want to have sex with them.


Now, even skipping over the fact that your premise is faulty, the question of how a drunk person is meant to blah blah blah, is wholly irrelevant as Evans wasn't drunk.  You have chosen to deliberately muddle the two people, for our own reactionary ends.
And, of course, you skip over the most salient fact, which is that the jury clearly believed Evans had lied about his view of the victims sobriety. He was established as a liar, and therefore his statements on consent were dismissed, as those of a liar. That is what convicted him not your string of bollocks.

To sum up again: fuck off.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 17, 2014)

free spirit said:


> In this entire thread nobody has managed to offer any clear explanation of how this is supposed to work, ie how anyone is supposed to be able to judge if the woman they're about to have sex with is too drunk for her consent to be judged to have been valid.
> 
> If people who're sober and giving this considerable thought can't explain how this is supposed to work, *then it's unreasonable to expect that a drunk person should be able to make that determination when faced with another drunk person who's saying they want to have sex with them.*


 free spirit do you think Evans was drunk?


----------



## likesfish (Nov 17, 2014)

I think the idea that your mate texts you to say found one.
 Is possibly a clue that things are not kosher


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I don't think it's ok to have sex with incapacitated women, that would rightly be rape.
> 
> I do think it's ok to have consensual sex with a drunk woman, and the law has always been that this is ok.
> 
> ...


if you have to wonder whether either partner's in a fit state to give consent then they're clearly not.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 17, 2014)

FS, you've had some sharp responses on this thread. Personally, I'm happy to agree with you that there's an issue with what can be deduced from an alcoholic blackout (though I'd take the more straightforward route of seeing this as something that helps the _prosecution_ rather than the defence). I also agree there's an issue for the court of actually _knowing_ how drunk she was when evans arrived, particularly the lack of independent witnesses.  So yes, these are not insignificant issues and they are ones that can be discussed. That means there's also the _possibility_ that evans was an exploitative scumbag, but not a rapist.

Trouble is in what was always going to be a difficult job for the prosecution, they _did_ convince the jury.  They got over what was going to be a very high hurdle - and I've not seen anything from you or others on this thread that shows they got it wrong.


----------



## Betsy (Nov 17, 2014)

toggle said:


> As i believe has been said several times, a set point has not been made. ti's down to the jury to decide if, in their opinion, the prosecution has successfully made it's case that someone is incapacitated.
> 
> if any 'point' needs to be discussed, it is this. -* if you need a formula to tell you when someone is too drunk for it to be ok to stick your penis in them, then perhaps that activity is best left to those capable of more nuanced judgement and respect for their partners. that goes doubly so when you're responding to a text from a mate offering you seconds*.


 This!


----------



## belboid (Nov 17, 2014)

PaulHeaton has resigned from the united community foundation.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2014)

Took your effin time paul but, well done.

edit: Interesting worded statement. It's actually mealy mouthed union bollocks. So not well done.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 17, 2014)

belboid said:


> PaulHeaton has resigned from the united community foundation.


 I wonder what PR people call the current situation? We've gone from 'the PFA asked us to let him train and anyway he's served his time' to... pretty much nothing.  They must know he'll be hoyed out, but haven't go anything to say about it.  Trouble is, having gone on about the traditions of the club and values, it will look like those values were compatible with both employing him and kicking him out. 

Sorry, that wasn't veryclear, I'm just suggesting they are a bunch of spineless hypocrites.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2014)

_Do it elsewhere - not here. But do it._

Pathetic paul.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 17, 2014)

I love Paul  Heaton but that statement is more pathetic by the minute. Of all the people that i thought wouldn't bottle it...he bottles it.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> _Do it elsewhere - not here. But do it._
> 
> Pathetic paul.



Yeah that was a bit wtf. Let him re-build his career just stop dragging Sheffield Utd through the mud.


----------



## belboid (Nov 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> _Do it elsewhere - not here. But do it._
> 
> Pathetic paul.


Very true, the one thing going for it is that he isn't mealy mouthed about saying 'it was rape'


----------



## brogdale (Nov 17, 2014)

Paraphrased from the end of his C4 News interview"...any issue of contrition is hypothetical 'cause Evans and his friends maintain his innocence."


----------



## Wilf (Nov 17, 2014)

I've no real problem with having the theoretical right to return to football, I'm not that keen on 'role model' arguments anyway.  However there's all the difference in the world between that and a club _choosing_ to take him on, particularly as football doesn't recruit through open application and recruitment.  I'm not calling for some kind of blacklist, but you do have to ask why any chair or manager of a club would take active steps to put an unrepentant rapist on the books. That's even more the case when it comes to Sheffield (United ) as he's already dragged their name through the mud.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 17, 2014)

I have a problem with him returning to football, it would make him a high profile celebrity.

He's a rapist.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2014)

Is he an unrepentant rapist?  I thought I read somewhere that he was claiming to be innocent.


----------



## cesare (Nov 17, 2014)

8ball said:


> Is he an unrepentant rapist?  I thought I read somewhere that he was claiming to be innocent.


He's a convicted rapist who's unrepentant.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2014)

cesare said:


> He's a convicted rapist who's unrepentant.



I think we've mangled the words a bit here.  An unrepentant rapist would be the Lost Prophets 'megalols' guy.


----------



## Part 2 (Nov 17, 2014)

For some reason the Irish PFA have felt the need to have their two penneth.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/nov/17/ched-evans-irish-pfa-guildford-four


----------



## cesare (Nov 17, 2014)

8ball said:


> I think we've mangled the words a bit here.  An unrepentant rapist would be the Lost Prophets 'megalols' guy.


Ah, by unrepentant you mean deliberate?


----------



## JTG (Nov 17, 2014)

cesare said:


> Ah, by unrepentant you mean deliberate?


Yeah, I think he means someone whose attitude is basically 'I'm a rapist and I'm OK' or something similar


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2014)

cesare said:


> Ah, by unrepentant you mean deliberate?



They're not the same thing, but I figured 'deliberate' was part of the deal, not that I've wanted to immerse myself in the details of this case.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 17, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I have a problem with him returning to football, it would make him a high profile celebrity.
> 
> He's a rapist.


Well, I too have a problem with it, he's a rapist he doesn't give a fuck about his victim - I don't want him getting well paid, I don't particularly want him to be happy or feel he's got his life back where it was.  I was maybe being pedantic, I just don't think there should be some kind of _agreed ban_.  I'd prefer the clubs to have bit of common decency and ignore the twat.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 17, 2014)

Chip Barm said:


> For some reason the Irish PFA have felt the need to have their two penneth.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/nov/17/ched-evans-irish-pfa-guildford-four


FFS.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 17, 2014)

There is some very dangerous opinion in that article from the Irish PFA:



> “There is little point in trying to dissect the legal niceties of this very complex issue but suffice to say that Ched Evans has a very arguable case that he is the victim of a miscarriage of justice,” Gilhooly wrote.
> 
> “*If having sex with a drunk woman is rape, then thousands of men are guilty of rape every day. The simple point is that degrees of intoxication are a very difficult concept for young men to grapple with when they themselves have had plenty to drink*.”



Bolded for emphasis.

I just don't know where to begin what he wrote. It comes across as if a woman is drunk and she gets raped then it's her fault, it's not the fault of the guy if he's been drinking too, because it's difficult to tell. What kind of message is that to send?

And he refers to the hierarchy of rape later on too, citing the fact that there was no violence and that the victim doesn't remember what happened as a 'mitigating factor'. Absolutely horrendous.


----------



## JTG (Nov 17, 2014)

Equating him to the Birmingham Six is a classy move too. Definitely the same


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 17, 2014)

He's on twitter as @PFAISolicitor. I've sent a tweet to him making my thoughts clear. I'm absolutely appalled that a solicitor would make such comments.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 17, 2014)

JTG said:


> Equating him to the Birmingham Six is a classy move too. Definitely the same


Aye - if I didn't know better I'd think he wasn't a solicitor at all.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 17, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Aye - if I didn't know better I'd think he wasn't a solicitor at all.


That was my first thought. It's confused, contradictory rambling.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 17, 2014)

8ball said:


> Is he an unrepentant rapist?  I thought I read somewhere that he was claiming to be innocent.


He claims to be innocent of rape, his defence is that he did have sex with her and he's ashamed for cheating on his girlfriend.

He does not accept that he has committed rape, despite being a convicted rapist. His 2012 appeal was rejected, and his new legal team have asked for a review of his case to be expedited.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 17, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> There is some very dangerous opinion in that article from the Irish PFA:
> .


 Yes, some astonishing stuff (some of it mirroring the nonsense earlier in this thread) - even more so coming from a solicitor.  Why the fuck did he think it was a good idea to intervene?  Apart from the more important reasons why he should have kept out of it, there's also the fact that he's commenting on a player who has represented another Football Association - _Wales_.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> *He does not accept that he has committed rape, despite being a convicted rapist.*



So on that one point he does have something in common with the Birmingham Six - they were also convicted and did not accept their guilt.  It's also true to say that any display of repentance would be totally meaningless unless he accepts his guilt.

Whether Evans is deluded in believing himself innocent, and whether this solicitor's argument that it is reasonable for him to think so I can't say, but those other particular statements are still sound on their own merits.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 17, 2014)

8ball said:


> So on that one point he does have something in common with the Birmingham Six - they were also convicted and did not accept their guilt.  It's also true to say that any display of repentance would be totally meaningless unless he accepts his guilt.
> 
> Whether Evans is deluded in believing himself innocent, and whether this solicitor's argument that it is reasonable for him to think so I can't say, but those other particular statements are still sound on their own merits.


That's not all he says though. He also says something about Evans being drunk and maybe getting signals wrong, which absolutely is not Evans' own contention - he says she clearly consented - and then there's something idiotic about her not remembering being mitigation, which is frankly bizarre.

I don't want this bloke in my corner arguing my defence.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not all he says though. He also says something about Evans being drunk and maybe getting signals wrong, which absolutely is not Evans' own contention - he says she clearly consented - and then there's something idiotic about her not remembering being mitigation, which is frankly bizarre.
> 
> I don't want this bloke in my corner arguing my defence.



Well yeah, if she clearly consented then the stuff about getting signals wrong is nonsensical.
If she didn't remember the attack, though, who was the complainant?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 17, 2014)

Suspect it'll be removed from their site within 48 hours, particularly if Irish women's groups get on the case.  At one level astonishing stupidity for a solicitor to fuck up so badly, but it's also another intervention designed to minimise what rape is classed as.  Fucking horrible, particularly for the victim.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 17, 2014)

8ball said:


> Well yeah, if she clearly consented then the stuff about getting signals wrong is nonsensical.
> If she didn't remember the attack, though, who was the complainant?


You've not read up on this, have you?

She does not remember going to the hotel, only remembers waking up there alone the next morning. The court did not believe Evans when he said she had consented. The judge sentencing said that earlier cctv footage of her stumbling in the street showed she had been too drunk to consent to sex. It's kind of the crux of the thing. You're probably best reading up for yourself.


----------



## JTG (Nov 17, 2014)

Is the Birmingham Six thing designed to show the British justice system's treatment of accused in rape cases in the same light as those fitted up on bombing charges? To say _see how they have transferred their persecution of the innocent to young men on the pull_?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 18, 2014)

JTG said:


> Is the Birmingham Six thing designed to show the British justice system's treatment of accused in rape cases in the same light as those fitted up on bombing charges? To say _see how they have transferred their persecution of the innocent to young men on the pull_?


I have a feeling Gareth Pierce will give this one a miss.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 18, 2014)

8ball said:


> So on that one point he does have something in common with the Birmingham Six - they were also convicted and did not accept their guilt.  It's also true to say that any display of repentance would be totally meaningless unless he accepts his guilt.
> 
> Whether Evans is deluded in believing himself innocent, and whether this solicitor's argument that it is reasonable for him to think so I can't say, but those other particular statements are still sound on their own merits.


Yes, but he wasn't interrogated for 12 hours at a time, beaten, denied food and water, or have forensic evidence misinterpreted, as far as I know. So he doesn't have anything in common with the Birmingham 6 apart from a statement of innocence.


----------



## past caring (Nov 18, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Aye - if I didn't know better I'd think he wasn't a solicitor at all.





littlebabyjesus said:


> That was my first thought. It's confused, contradictory rambling.



I take it neither of you have had a great many dealings with solicitors, then?


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 18, 2014)

8ball said:


> Well yeah, if she clearly consented then the stuff about getting signals wrong is nonsensical.
> If she didn't remember the attack, though, who was the complainant?


She was the complainant. She phoned the police after waking up naked in a hotel room.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 18, 2014)

past caring said:


> I take it neither of you have had a great many dealings with solicitors, then?


The one who dealt with my grandfather's estate did not cover himself in glory, shall we say.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 18, 2014)

JTG said:


> Is the Birmingham Six thing designed to show the British justice system's treatment of accused in rape cases in the same light as those fitted up on bombing charges? To say _see how they have transferred their persecution of the innocent to young men on the pull_?


I doubt it's as well thought through as that, more the case everyone in the UK thinks of as an example of a miscarriage of justice.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You've not read up on this, have you?



Nope, not at all, but there's clearly a very emotionally charged narrative at play. 

It does sound pretty complicated legally speaking if CCTV footage in a different time and location was taken as evidence of non-consent.  But like you say, I've not read up and there is a lot I don't know, such as how much bearing that had on things. 

I don't expect to find any of the details terribly edifying but I still maintain that talk of repentance is meaningless if he claims he is innocent (of the rape rather than the cheating on his gf thing).  I can't think of any detail that would change that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> I doubt it's as well thought through as that, more the case everyone in the UK thinks of as an example of a miscarriage of justice.


It reads like speak you're branes on the Daily Express comments page.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2014)

8ball said:


> Nope, not at all, but there's clearly a very emotionally charged narrative at play.
> 
> It does sound pretty complicated legally speaking if CCTV footage in a different time and location was taken as evidence of non-consent.  But like you say, I've not read up and there is a lot I don't know, such as how much bearing that had on things.
> 
> I don't expect to find any of the details terribly edifying but I still maintain that talk of repentance is meaningless if he claims he is innocent (of the rape rather than the cheating on his gf thing).  I can't think of any detail that would change that.


No, I agree. He can't say she consented _and_ be repentant about raping her.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 18, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> She was the complainant. She phoned the police after waking up naked in a hotel room.



Did she claim she remembered not consenting?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 18, 2014)

8ball said:


> Did she claim she remembered not consenting?


It's almost as if post 1221 didn't happen.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 18, 2014)

8ball said:


> Did she claim she remembered not consenting?



No. She appears to have suffered an alcohol-induced blackout that lasted a couple of hours at least. Brought on by drinking a number of shots in quick succession. In that time, she went back to a hotel with one footballer - McDonald - (and willingly, according to the cctv), then had intercourse with him, and then with Evans who had arrived after being texted by McDonald in the taxi that 'I've got a bird'. Both were charged with rape. McDonald was found not guilty. Evans guilty. McDonald left before Evans, who sneaked out a back entrance and left her alone. When she woke up alone the next morning, she thought her drink had been spiked (had never blacked out before) and that her purse had been stolen. Turns out that she had left her purse in a shop - typical of a blackout, unable to lay down new memories, so forgets she's put it down somewhere.

I believe she initially went to the police about the purse/drink being spiked. Only later did she find out that she'd gone to the hotel with McDonald. There was no evidence, nor suggestion in court, that her drink had been spiked. cctv footage showed her stumbling in the street, and also showed her entering the hotel arm-in-arm with McDonald. They said she had consented in the hotel room. The court did not believe them. They also tried to make out that the woman was a liar in court, but all she said of the events in the hotel room was 'I do not remember'.

To add to the slease, two of Evans' mates tried to film them having sex through the window of the hotel room on their phones. Sounds like I'm making this up now, but I'm not.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 18, 2014)

Ick, that's a horrible and pretty complicated case on the face of it.  Made more so with the other accused party and stuff.  It certainly looks plausible that they might not have cared whether she consented, but people who don't have the record function on can often appear fairly lucid and people who can appear out of it one minute can be quite functional shortly after.

Can't argue with the fact that the court didn't believe them, but it's a right old mess.


----------



## cesare (Nov 18, 2014)

spanglechick said:


> She was so drunk she wet the fucking bed.  That on its own indicates to me that she was very drunk.  Maybe not to you.
> 
> You seem to think a very high level of drunkenness should be needed before a person starts questioning the validity of consent that may have been given.
> 
> ...


Your post should be replied to every time someone new joins the thread not having read the background to the case.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 18, 2014)

cesare said:


> Your post should be replied to every time someone new joins the thread not having read the background to the case.


Yes, we are getting to the point where this thread needs its very own sticky.

I sort of feel I've made a good number of posts on this thread, virtually saying the same thing, not adding anything new. But then you see this idiotic stuff from the PFAI solicitor and are reminded this is an important case and that there's an ongoing battle around rape and rape prosecutions. 
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/18/police-dismiss-one-in-four-sex-crimes-watchdog


----------



## toggle (Nov 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not all he says though. He also says something about Evans being drunk and maybe getting signals wrong, which absolutely is not Evans' own contention - he says she clearly consented - and then there's something idiotic about her not remembering being mitigation, which is frankly bizarre.
> 
> I don't want this bloke in my corner arguing my defence.



because clearly, it's less wrong to rape someone as long as you wait until they are blacked out first. i wonder where he stands on drugging someone so they don't remember,.



Wilf said:


> Yes, we are getting to the point where this thread needs its very own sticky.
> 
> I sort of feel I've made a good number of posts on this thread, virtually saying the same thing, not adding anything new. But then you see this idiotic stuff from the PFAI solicitor and are reminded this is an important case and that there's an ongoing battle around rape and rape prosecutions.
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/18/police-dismiss-one-in-four-sex-crimes-watchdog



it's worth noting that the studies that show ridiculously high levels of false allegation are those that are based mostly or solely on police opinion that no crime actually happened. like examples when the police have decided they don't want to investigate because they don't believe the victim, because they aren't the right level of upset, or because of other rape myths. or beause some types of women just aren't worth listening to. simply, among the women whose rapes are listed as no crime are likely to be the most vulnerable


----------



## Part 2 (Nov 18, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> There is some very dangerous opinion in that article from the Irish PFA:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was surprised myself. My impression was that any 'I was drunk/on drugs' defence is seen as an aggravating factor so for a solicitor to suggest otherwise seems a bit ludicrous.


----------



## comrade spurski (Nov 18, 2014)

Convicted rapists have to be able to work in order to be rehabilitated once they are deemed safe to be releases into society. ..they do not have the right to return to their former jobs or even careers. No rapist could return to Being a teacher...a cabbie...social worker...school caretaker...lawyer...there is a huge list of jobs they could not return to...so why the fuck should this UNREPENTANT RAPIST still be a footballer? 
So what if he has been released from prison...so what if he feels like he is still being punished...rape is a serious fucking crime.
Having a right to a job does not equate to having a right to be a footballer.
I do not get how anyone thinks he has a right to be a footballer.


----------



## Sprocket. (Nov 18, 2014)

Sadly all the patrons who have resigned from the Sheffield United Community Foundation are a major loss to this local charity that does so much for underprivileged children and families in the region.
For this reason alone I would think anyone with a conscience would withdraw all connections from Sheffield United and disappear from public view. But then again an unrepentant, convicted rapist probably has no conscience!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Nov 18, 2014)

I can only presume the manager (Nigel Clough) wants Ched Evans to play for them. If he didn't this part of the story would not be an issue.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No. She appears to have suffered an alcohol-induced blackout that lasted a couple of hours at least. Brought on by drinking a number of shots in quick succession. In that time, she went back to a hotel with one footballer - McDonald - (and willingly, according to the cctv), then had intercourse with him, and then with Evans who had arrived after being texted by McDonald in the taxi that 'I've got a bird'. Both were charged with rape. McDonald was found not guilty. Evans guilty. McDonald left before Evans, who sneaked out a back entrance and left her alone. When she woke up alone the next morning, she thought her drink had been spiked (had never blacked out before) and that her purse had been stolen. Turns out that she had left her purse in a shop - typical of a blackout, unable to lay down new memories, so forgets she's put it down somewhere.
> 
> I believe she initially went to the police about the purse/drink being spiked. Only later did she find out that she'd gone to the hotel with McDonald. There was no evidence, nor suggestion in court, that her drink had been spiked. cctv footage showed her stumbling in the street, and also showed her entering the hotel arm-in-arm with McDonald. They said she had consented in the hotel room. The court did not believe them. They also tried to make out that the woman was a liar in court, but all she said of the events in the hotel room was 'I do not remember'.
> 
> To add to the slease, two of Evans' mates tried to film them having sex through the window of the hotel room on their phones. Sounds like I'm making this up now, but I'm not.


So you've now read what happened. At this point in the discussion.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 18, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> Having a right to a job does not equate to having a right to be a footballer.  I do not get how anyone thinks he has a right to be a footballer.


 
I don't think the right to be a professional footballer is in any of the human rights acts anyway.
Is there a list of 'rapist suitable' jobs somewhere?


----------



## belboid (Nov 18, 2014)

Were he repentant, I would have little problem with him going back to being a footballer. He should have to accept he wouldn't play at the very highest levels, or even as high a level as he had played at before, but he shouldn't be entirely barred, imo.

However, he is an unrepentant piece of shit, so fuck him.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 18, 2014)

8ball said:


> I don't think the right to be a professional footballer is in any of the human rights acts anyway.
> *Is there a list of 'rapist suitable' jobs somewhere*?


 
MI5 or MI6 handler?

Cheers- Louis MacNeice


----------



## co-op (Nov 18, 2014)

May have been answered somewhere already but what is the story about early release and admitting your guilt? I thought they were linked? (I remember cases where people protesting innocence were denied parole for years).


----------



## Betsy (Nov 18, 2014)

*Ched Evans: Rape row footballer 'being victimised'*

**

_Convicted rapist and former Sheffield United footballer Ched Evans is being victimised, a lawyer has claimed.


Evans, who was jailed in April 2012 for raping a 19-year-old woman in a hotel room in 2011, was released last month.


Stuart Gilhooly, a lawyer for the Professional Footballers' Association of Ireland, said other convicted people had later been found to be innocent.


However, a rape victims' support group said the comparison was "ridiculous and insulting to victims".


Mr Gilhooly wrote an article on the association's website referring to Evans' crime as "alleged", despite the fact the footballer was found guilty of raping the woman in the hotel in Rhyl, North Wales, and sentenced to five years. 


The article has since been removed from the website.


Stephen McGuinness, general secretary of the PFAI, confirmed that it had been the association's decision to remove the article from the website.


Mr McGuinness said: "We decided to take it down, it was our decision. We decided to take it down this morning as soon as we came in."


In his article, Mr Gilhooly said he believed that, whether Evans was guilty or innocent, the footballer deserved another chance. _

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-30093565


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 18, 2014)

co-op said:


> May have been answered somewhere already but what is the story about early release and admitting your guilt? I thought they were linked? (I remember cases where people protesting innocence were denied parole for years).


ViolentPanda posted that this isn't always so. Check his posts on this thread.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 18, 2014)

Betsy said:


> *Ched Evans: Rape row footballer 'being victimised'*
> 
> **
> 
> ...


I saw that article. 

The fact that his victim has been persecuted so much that she's had to change her name clearly pales into insignificance due to the amount of victimisation he's suffered...


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 18, 2014)

Why has this Irish lawyer stuck his oar in?
Evans is Welsh, isn't he?


----------



## weepiper (Nov 18, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Why has this Irish lawyer stuck his oar in?
> Evans is Welsh, isn't he?


He must have seen the man-signal


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 18, 2014)

How come nobody told me about the human right to be a professional footballer before anyway? Mine's been constantly violated since forever and I've never even raped anyone - all I ever did was be shit at football


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 18, 2014)

Wilf said:


> I wonder what PR people call the current situation? We've gone from 'the PFA asked us to let him train and anyway he's served his time' to... pretty much nothing.  They must know he'll be hoyed out, but haven't go anything to say about it.  Trouble is, having gone on about the traditions of the club and values, it will look like those values were compatible with both employing him and kicking him out.
> 
> Sorry, that wasn't veryclear, I'm just suggesting they are a bunch of spineless hypocrites.




I agree, but it was pretty clear how incompetent Sheffield United's PR people were, from the start. Especially after they allowed the words 'mob justice to appear in the club's official statement


----------



## likesfish (Nov 18, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> How come nobody told me about the human right to be a professional footballer before anyway? Mine's been constantly violated since forever and I've never even raped anyone - all I ever did was be shit at football



Theres always the england team


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 18, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Why has this Irish lawyer stuck his oar in?
> Evans is Welsh, isn't he?


Fuck knows, and yes he is.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 18, 2014)

That PFAI lawyers's a fucking idiot -- and that's the least of it.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 18, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> That PFAI lawyers's a fucking idiot -- and that's the least of it.


Frightening, isn't it?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 18, 2014)

Laywer and mra mentalist somehow gets hold of keys to Irish pfa website to the embarrassment of pretty much everyone maybe?


----------



## hash tag (Nov 18, 2014)

He is a victim, just like the guildford 4 ( not ). Slightly more heartening news, paul heaton has withdrawn his support of the blades

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/18/ched-evans_n_6176246.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-sport&ir=UK+Sport


----------



## Part 2 (Nov 18, 2014)

no one knew that


----------



## JTG (Nov 18, 2014)

SpineyNorman said:


> How come nobody told me about the human right to be a professional footballer before anyway? Mine's been constantly violated since forever and I've never even raped anyone - all I ever did was be shit at football



Don't be so defeatist man. I've been watching Bristol Rovers for over 20 years and I'm pretty sure that being shit at football is no barrier to gainful employment as a pro.



hash tag said:


> He is a victim, just like the guildford 4 ( not ). Slightly more heartening news, paul heaton has withdrawn his support of the blades
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/18/ched-evans_n_6176246.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-sport&ir=UK Sport



Just his association with the community side. He still supports SUFC.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> ViolentPanda posted that this isn't always so. Check his posts on this thread.



Yep, placement and completion of an SOTP is predicated on availability.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 19, 2014)

Aha!

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/19/bbc-knickers-on-nick-conrad-rapist-ched-evans



> The BBC has apologised after a radio presenter said women should “keep their knickers on” during a discussion on convicted rapist Ched Evans.
> 
> Nick Conrad, a talk show host on BBC Radio Norfolk, made the comments in a live debate about the former Sheffield United striker, who has provoked an outcry after returning to train with the club.
> 
> ...






I fear Mr Conrad may soon be the subject of a sacking.


----------



## Betsy (Nov 19, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> *I fear Mr Conrad may soon be the subject of a sacking*.


We can but hope!


----------



## trashpony (Nov 19, 2014)

Blimey, the amount of rapey talk coming out of people's mouths in the aftermath of this case is really depressing


----------



## The Octagon (Nov 19, 2014)

Is Nick Conrad Steelgate?

Certainly sounds like it, the creepy fuck.



> I think women need to be more aware of a man’s sexual desire; that when you’re in that position that you are about to engage in sexual activity there’s a huge amount of energy in the male body, there’s a huge amount of will and intent, and it’s very difficult for many men to say no when they are whipped up into a bit of a storm.



That's just a disturbing viewpoint on so many levels.


----------



## andysays (Nov 19, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Aha!
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/19/bbc-knickers-on-nick-conrad-rapist-ched-evans
> 
> I fear Mr Conrad may soon be the subject of a sacking.



Maybe he should follow his own advice and "keep his mouth shut", or at least consider that if someone like him talks a lot of offensive crap, then the dog of public opinion is likely to turn around and bite him


----------



## BigTom (Nov 19, 2014)

Fucking hell, that's whole levels of offensive stupidity being displayed there. If us men as such a slave to our base instincts, then perhaps radio presenters who can't keep their mouths shut should expect a good kicking, after all it's very difficult for many men to control ourselves when we're whipped up into a bit of a storm. If you yank a feminist's tail (cos they are all devils with horns as well obv) then you should expect to get beaten to a pulp. Shame it doesn't actually happen. Here's looking forward to the sacking and the inevitable non-apology for causing offence.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 19, 2014)

Beeb holding the line with an apology at the moment, no sacking.

Radio Norfolk?  Fucking hell he's a rapey version of Alan Partridge.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 19, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Beeb holding the line with an apology at the moment, no sacking.
> 
> Radio Norfolk?  Fucking hell he's a rapey version of Alan Partridge.




Alan Partridge: You're sacked! You are sacked, I'm sacking you. In fact, it's happened, it's over, it's already happened, you are a sacked man. You've been sacked. You're the subject of a sacking, I want you off these premises in 10 minutes. Knowing me, Alan Partridge, sacking you, Glenn Ponder Nick Conrad. A-ha!


----------



## Wilf (Nov 19, 2014)

Rather unwisely, I've just read this story on the mail's website. The comments are .... predictable, including this little gem:


> Is it wise to leave bags full of groceries on your car in the car park unattended?


 Just wow.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 19, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Aha!
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/19/bbc-knickers-on-nick-conrad-rapist-ched-evans
> 
> ...


i thought being norfolk the traditional approach is too drop a cow on them


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Aha!
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/19/bbc-knickers-on-nick-conrad-rapist-ched-evans
> 
> ...



Hopefully.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 19, 2014)

likesfish said:


> i thought being norfolk the traditional approach is too drop a cow on them



Not too many cows in Norfolk, it's mostly arable farming (barley, canola, sugar beet), not livestock.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 19, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not too many cows in Norfolk...



Cos the farmers rip out their spines and eat them in a bap. FACT.


----------



## Athos (Nov 19, 2014)

8ball said:


> I don't think the right to be a professional footballer is in any of the human rights acts anyway.
> Is there a list of 'rapist suitable' jobs somewhere?



Radio 1 DJ?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 19, 2014)

Athos said:


> Radio 1 DJ?



I was hoping for an exhaustive list but that's 2 reasonably-paid jobs so far, then, I suppose.


----------



## Cid (Nov 19, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You've not read up on this, have you?
> 
> She does not remember going to the hotel, only remembers waking up there alone the next morning. The court did not believe Evans when he said she had consented. The judge sentencing said that earlier cctv footage of her stumbling in the street showed she had been too drunk to consent to sex. It's kind of the crux of the thing. You're probably best reading up for yourself.



Where did the judge say that?


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 19, 2014)

I just love how feminists have been identified as the real problem in all this, not men who commit rape.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

> Sheffield United have bowed to intense public pressure and revoked their invitation to convicted rapist Ched Evans to train with them.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 20, 2014)

At last.


----------



## comrade spurski (Nov 20, 2014)

Yay...mob rule and feminists win out... (sheff utd issued a statement complaining of mob rule and wankers have been complaining about feminists...so I hope they are as pissed at this as I am pleased)

Edit...having accidentally pissing off posters I have added to this to vlarify...


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 20, 2014)




----------



## equationgirl (Nov 20, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> Yay...mob rule and feminists win out


Oh for fucks sake. It's not about feminists winning.

It's about a convicted rapist being in a position of a role model.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 20, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Oh for fucks sake. It's not about feminists winning.
> 
> It's about a convicted rapist being in a position of a role model.



I think he/she may be sarcastic having looked back through the thread. 

Scary how many MRAs seem to be about these days.


----------



## comrade spurski (Nov 20, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Oh for fucks sake. It's not about feminists winning.
> 
> It's about a convicted rapist being in a position of a role model.


Really sorry equationgirll...maybe my sarcasm was misplaced...I put a post up previously slating sheffield united for refusing to call evans a rapist but calling us a mob...lots of wankers have been complaining about feminists ...
My comment was a sarcastic dig at the wankers...apologies for accidentally pissing you off


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 20, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> Really sorry equationgirll...maybe my sarcasm was misplaced...I put a post up previously slating sheffield united for refusing to call evans a rapist but calling us a mob...lots of wankers have been complaining about feminists ...
> My comment was a sarcastic dig at the wankers...apologies for accidentally pissing you off


No, I should apologise, I'm sorry - feminists seem to be accused of being the root of all evil at the moment.

Although sarcasm does not always translate in posts...


----------



## comrade spurski (Nov 20, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> No, I should apologise, I'm sorry - feminists seem to be accused of being the root of all evil at the moment.
> 
> Although sarcasm does not always translate in posts...



Agree fully...so no need for you to apologise


----------



## comrade spurski (Nov 20, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> I think he/she may be sarcastic having looked back through the thread.
> 
> Scary how many MRAs seem to be about these days.


 What does MRA stand for...and thanks for explaining that I was being sarcastic...was very kind of you


----------



## Wilf (Nov 20, 2014)

Glad they've ditched him, but the glass half empty guy in me suspects some non-league or league 2 club will be planning an offer to allow him to train with them even tonight.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 20, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> What does MRA stand for...and thanks for explaining that I was being sarcastic...was very kind of you


MRA = Mens Rights Activist 

Often(but not exclusively) starts sentences with 'men have it worse', 'but what about the men', 'women exercise power over men' etc


----------



## Wilf (Nov 20, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Glad they've ditched him, but the glass half empty guy in me suspects some non-league or league 2 club will be planning an offer to allow him to train with them even tonight.


Actually, aim high, Wigan are in the racism business, there's got to be a fit.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/nov/20/wigan-dave-whelan-accused-antisemitism-jewish-people


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 20, 2014)

SU look like they might be giving him the chop.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30054475

A lot of liberal tilted folk (or at least people using liberal cover for more fishy motives) have gone for a line not related to the crime itself, but more on the lines of "everyone deserves a second chance". While it's easy to sympathise with that, it's also true that it's not just football where rapists would struggle to get employed. Certain jobs would be less likely to employ than others for a bunch of reasons. Football might not be thought to be near the top of that list, but the whole "role model" thing does come into play. It has been the decision of advertisers,celebs not to associate with the club if they continue relations, a decision that should be respected. And if the clubs decision follows from that, so be it. Fame can be a double edged sword, usually it works out for the best, but perhaps not if the person in question rapes someone.


----------



## comrade spurski (Nov 20, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> MRA = Mens Rights Activist
> 
> Often(but not exclusively) starts sentences with 'men have it worse', 'but what about the men', 'women exercise power over men' etc



Thanks...didn't know that they have a name other than "those sexist pricks"


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 20, 2014)

Telegraph article said:
			
		

> The club said it had consulted fans, staff and sponsors *before* reaching its position.



Lying tossers.


----------



## D'wards (Nov 21, 2014)

Why doesn't he just fuck off to the continent and ply his trade there? I'm sure he could find a well paying gig where they are less concerned about employing a rapist as we are in this country.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 21, 2014)

D'wards said:


> Why doesn't he just fuck off to the continent and ply his trade there? I'm sure he could find a well paying gig where they are less concerned about employing a rapist as we are in this country.


 Maybe Sweden will take him in lieu of Julian Assange.


----------



## jrthelord (Nov 21, 2014)

Although I don't actually have any sympathy for Ched Evans I am slightly concerned about the Nimbyism being exhibited, surely you either think he should be permitted to play football again or you don't. 

I am convinced that you either believe in the rehabilitation of offenders or you don't, why would it be acceptable for him to play for a league 2 side but not for Sheff Utd? 

At what point does it become an extrajudicial punishment?

Marlon King, Lee Hughes, Luke McCormack were all able to return to football after prison sentences.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 21, 2014)

jrthelord said:


> Although I don't actually have any sympathy for Ched Evans I am slightly concerned about the Nimbyism being exhibited, surely you either think he should be permitted to play football again or you don't.
> 
> I am convinced that you either believe in the rehabilitation of offenders or you don't, why would it be acceptable for him to play for a league 2 side but not for Sheff Utd?
> 
> ...




Have you read the thread? I think you may find it informative.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Wilf (Nov 21, 2014)

jrthelord said:


> Although I don't actually have any sympathy for Ched Evans I am slightly concerned about the Nimbyism being exhibited, surely you either think he should be permitted to play football again or you don't.
> 
> I am convinced that you either believe in the rehabilitation of offenders or you don't, why would it be acceptable for him to play for a league 2 side but not for Sheff Utd?
> 
> ...


 Technically, I'm not sure it's nimbyism - only a couple of people on this thread are from Sheffield/blades fans. But anyway...  the issue for me isn't that he has a conviction, it's that he _denies he did it_.  Beyond that, I don't believe there _can_ or _should_ be an agreement to ban him from football. I'd turn it round - I'd ask why would any club _choose_ to appoint someone with a rape conviction _who denies he even did it_.  It's pretty much a common decency thing about organisations who don't recruit workers like normal jobs.  When it comes to regular jobs, at least those jobs not affected by his conviction, he's in the mix with any other applicant.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 21, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> Thanks...didn't know that they have a name other than "those sexist pricks"



They are a sexist prick _club_, rather than the freelancers you usually find.


----------



## hash tag (Nov 21, 2014)

Pleased to see he has finally gone from SUFC, but it took sometime and some horrible arguements, not just on here but accross the press generally. Are there issues out there which still need addressing I wonder?
I suppose he made end up with Scunthorpe ( sorry ).


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 21, 2014)

well Scunthorpe already has one cunt in it...

Seen the statement by SUFC co-chairman Jim Phipps?

Seriously can not remember reading a bigger pile of shit than that.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 21, 2014)

well Scunthorpe already has one cunt in it...

Seen the statement by SUFC co-chairman Jim Phipps?

Seriously can not remember reading a bigger pile of shit than that.


----------



## belboid (Nov 28, 2014)

Nice to see Tranmere still have some principles (despite being really shit)

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/nov/27/tranmere-no-ched-evans-mark-palios


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2014)

belboid said:


> Nice to see Tranmere still have some principles (despite being really shit)
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/nov/27/tranmere-no-ched-evans-mark-palios


They signed his co-defendant mind.


----------



## belboid (Nov 28, 2014)

The one found not guilty?  He was found not guilty.  It is somewhat different. And it was under the previous owner, I think.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2014)

belboid said:


> The one found not guilty?  He was found not guilty.  It is somewhat different. And it was under the previous owner, I think.


Yeah, the one who rang up evans and said come and rape this girl.


----------



## hash tag (Nov 28, 2014)

Before anyone starts shouting about being an apologist, im not. I heard about this on r4 this morning . 

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/nov/27/anna-krien-wins-william-hill-sports-book-of-year-award


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 28, 2014)

belboid said:


> Nice to see Tranmere still have some principles (despite being really shit)
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/nov/27/tranmere-no-ched-evans-mark-palios




And yet...



> I strongly believe in the general principle that people have a right to rehabilitation after serving a sentence for a crime.



Still banging on about rehabilitation, a redundant word on someone who refuses to acknowledge he's done anything wrong.


----------



## belboid (Nov 28, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And yet...
> 
> 
> 
> Still banging on about rehabilitation, a redundant word on someone who refuses to acknowledge he's done anything wrong.


He has served his sentence, so is, legally speaking, rehabilitated. The fact that that is only true in a legalistic sense seems to be why we have refused to sign him.


----------



## tonysingh (Nov 28, 2014)

hash tag said:


> Before anyone starts shouting about being an apologist, im not. I heard about this on r4 this morning .
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/nov/27/anna-krien-wins-william-hill-sports-book-of-year-award


 
Reading through that, the bit that says "Quite possibly only a woman could have written it in as personal and perceptive a manner" is fucking bollocks. Men dont ever get raped?

In the matter of Evans being allowed to play again  or not. He cant claim to be allowed to play again under the auspices of rehabilitation if he wont admit guilt, as others have said. I would also venture that sex offenders, which is exactly what Evans is, are a particular danger if they can not or will not admit their own wrongdoing, they'll offend again given half a chance, or at least if they dont work through whatever demons are in their head that drove to commit that crime.

I would have fuck all problem with an armed robber playing for my team. A bacon on the other hand, and all sex offenders are at the same level for me, is a different kettle of cucumbers.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 28, 2014)

belboid said:


> He has served his sentence, so is, legally speaking, rehabilitated. The fact that that is only true in a legalistic sense seems to be why we have refused to sign him.



Well he's only served the custodial part of his sentence, still has 2.5 years to serve on license.


----------



## tonysingh (Nov 28, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Well he's only served the custodial part of his sentence, still has 2.5 years to serve on license.


 
Is it not the case that his sentence only truly finishes when it is spent? That's when your record gets wiped isnt it? In his case isn't the period until it is spent something like 10 years from the end of the sentence period, so that would be 2026-ish?

I went to read it up.

Turns out his sentence was 5 years, so therefore, according to the link provided (i hope i did it right!) it will NEVER be spent, so therefore he will never be rehabilitated, going on that criteria. At least that's how i read it.

https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/advice/planning/Pages/convictions.aspx


----------



## belboid (Nov 28, 2014)

tonysingh said:


> Is it not the case that his sentence only truly finishes when it is spent? That's when your record gets wiped isnt it? In his case isn't the period until it is spent something like 10 years from the end of the sentence period, so that would be 2026-ish?


actually, that is true from this year.  it used to be from conviction, but is now from the end of the sentence (no matter how much time served).  As Evans got over four years, his conviction will never be spent.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 28, 2014)

Your sentence finishes when the time you were sentenced is past. Spent or not is irrelevant.


----------



## JTG (Nov 28, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> They signed his co-defendant mind.


He played for us on loan at one point. Can't even remember whether it was before or after the case


----------



## belboid (Dec 3, 2014)

Inquiry into the conviction begun - it could take eight months

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-30310785


----------



## likesfish (Dec 4, 2014)

Even if you think you've done nothing wrong.
 Which is kinda hard to belive considering he ran away.
 2 and a half years in jail would even given a professional footballer time to think.


----------



## Part 2 (Dec 4, 2014)

What does the inquiry actually mean in terms of his conviction? Would it give him chance for future appeal? I thought he'd already tried that.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 4, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Even if you think you've done nothing wrong.
> Which is kinda hard to belive considering he ran away.
> 2 and a half years in jail would even given a professional footballer time to think.


But acknowleding his guilt means he wouldn't be able to play the victim of a miscarriage of justice for which he relies on for his support from hs gf and family etc.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 4, 2014)

Chip Barm said:


> What does the inquiry actually mean in terms of his conviction? Would it give him chance for future appeal? I thought he'd already tried that.



The Criminal Cases Review Commission looks at cases in depth and if they feel that there was possibly a miscarriage of justice they refer the case back to the court of appeal. Of the nearly 17,000 cases they've looked at 565 were referred to the court of appeal, 543 have been heard by the court of appeal with 374 quashed and 153 upheld.

So statistically having your case looked at by them is very unlikely to result in your conviction being quashed.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 4, 2014)

Oh, did notice Viky Pryce musing about Evans:



> He should be able to live a life. None of us know exactly what happened. He’s done the time, we should be much more open to rehabilitation.



We do know what happened, the court was quite clear on that


----------



## likesfish (Dec 4, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> But acknowleding his guilt means he wouldn't be able to play the victim of a miscarriage of justice for which he relies on for his support from hs gf and family etc.


 If he had the brains of a squirrel he could pull off the reformed act which is more beliveable and more people would be sympathetic.
 Could even be actually useful dont think with your dick or you could end up in jail.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 4, 2014)

likesfish said:


> If he had the brains of a squirrel he could pull off the reformed act which is more beliveable and more people would be sympathetic.
> Could even be actually useful dont think with your dick or you could end up in jail.


I dunno. People don't tend to be sympathetic of nonces reformed or otherwise. His only way out of that is to enable victim blaming hence the miscarriage of justice routine.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 4, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I dunno. People don't tend to be sympathetic of nonces reformed or otherwise. His only way out of that is to enable victim blaming hence the miscarriage of justice routine.




Dunno, as this case, indeed this thread has shown, there are enough people out there who are confused by the concept of consent. A contrite Evans explaining how what he did was so wrong probably could be accepted back in to football, at the same time as serving a useful purpose to educate others on the correct way for humans to behave towards each other. But that ship sailed long ago, so fuck him.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 4, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The Criminal Cases Review Commission looks at cases in depth and if they feel that there was possibly a miscarriage of justice they refer the case back to the court of appeal. Of the nearly 17,000 cases they've looked at 565 were referred to the court of appeal, 543 have been heard by the court of appeal with 374 quashed and 153 upheld.
> 
> So statistically having your case looked at by them is very unlikely to result in your conviction being quashed.



What's the criteria for a case to be reviewed in the first place, do you know?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 4, 2014)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> What's the criteria for a case to be reviewed in the first place, do you know?



No idea, outside pressure perhaps?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 4, 2014)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> What's the criteria for a case to be reviewed in the first place, do you know?


That you have tried an appeal first. After that, you just apply. 

This is the appeal court decision.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 4, 2014)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ched-evans-rape-conviction-probe-4741691



> This week the Mirror told how the number of women claiming to be the victims of drunken rape has risen following his his-profile case.
> 
> Police forces up and down the country have experienced a surge in the amount of people reporting their ordeal.
> 
> ...


----------



## BigTom (Dec 4, 2014)

I wonder what the absolute figures are for that rise, I bet it's really small still, would be easy to show a near 200% rise if you went from 2 cases to 6.

edit: the smallest that could be to generate a 192% rise is 25, rising to 48. I do wish that journalists would put absolute figures as well as relative ones.


----------



## Part 2 (Dec 20, 2014)

Going to Hartlepool?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30563782


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 20, 2014)

Chip Barm said:


> Going to Hartlepool?
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30563782


That's bent Moore. Class.


----------



## comrade spurski (Dec 20, 2014)

Moore is quoted as saying "he made a mistake"....who the fuck considers rape a mistake?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 20, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> Moore is quoted as saying "he made a mistake"....who the fuck considers rape a mistake?


Someone who 'made a  mistake"


----------



## comrade spurski (Dec 20, 2014)

I have an uncomfortable feeling about the term "rape apologist" but it really fits that quote.


----------



## hash tag (Dec 21, 2014)

Poor hartlepool, bottom of the league, so just when you thought things couldnt get any worse....


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 21, 2014)

Hartlepool now not signing him, apparently.


----------



## JTG (Dec 21, 2014)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Hartlepool now not signing him, apparently.


I can imagine the facepalming in the boardroom at their new manager's statements followed by a hasty press release


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2014)

Hartlepools united/clough

I forgot there were still so many not quite right/shady chairman around. I mean not billionaire ones. I mean _look at my car showroom and sheepskin coat _type ones.


----------



## hash tag (Dec 21, 2014)

Would that be yer arfur daley types


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Hartlepools united/clough
> 
> I forgot there were still so many not quite right/shady chairman around. I mean not billionaire ones. I mean _look at my car showroom and sheepskin coat _type ones.




And these are precisely the people Evans could have influenced had he been man enough to acknowledge what he'd done.

But we wasn't, just another scumbag rapist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2014)

hash tag said:


> Would that be yer arfur daley types



Nah!

Arthur Daley?
A little dodgy, maybe.
But underneath he's alright!


----------



## marty21 (Dec 22, 2014)

Evans will have to go abroad to have any chance of playing at a high-ish level - the only way he is likely to play in the UK again is if he acknowledges that he did rape her , and apologises for his actions. He is not going to do that as he appears to be waiting for the case to be looked at again, and is being badly advised by team evans.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 22, 2014)

Foreign teams may be a tad reluctant to take him on if Nike etc feel some pressure about sponsoring rapists.


----------



## marty21 (Dec 22, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Foreign teams may be a tad reluctant to take him on if Nike etc feel some pressure about sponsoring rapists.


True, but unless he acknowledges his guilt or does a real apology to his victim he has fuck all chance of playing in the UK again


----------



## equationgirl (Dec 22, 2014)

marty21 said:


> True, but unless he acknowledges his guilt or does a real apology to his victim he has fuck all chance of playing in the UK again


Neither of which are unreasonable things to expect of someone who wants to be a top-flight player, they are after all role models as much as sportsmen these days. But neither are likely as someone has already pointed out whilst he is waiting for the outcome of the latest legal challenge.


----------



## JTG (Dec 22, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Hartlepools united/clough
> 
> I forgot there were still so many not quite right/shady chairman around. I mean not billionaire ones. I mean _look at my car showroom and sheepskin coat _type ones.


Barry 'Boycey' Bradshaw on our board of directors is a prime example


----------



## hash tag (Dec 29, 2014)

Hmm, so cruel

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/dec/28/ched-evans-rape-victim-change-name-move-house-father


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 3, 2015)

He's been offered a job with a club in Malta, Hibernians, not to be confused with the Scottish one.

Maltese nonce.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 3, 2015)

Well as he probably isn't news over there he can probably be ushered in on the hush. Are there any Maltese feminist groups to give the heads up? What about these?

http://www.ncwmalta.com/home?l=1


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 3, 2015)

Better perhaps to ask your MP to ensure the rules of sex offenders on license regrading foreign travel are applied.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 3, 2015)

Overseas travel certainly has to be notified under the sex offenders registration afaik.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 3, 2015)

Malta's PM wades in:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...t-Ched-Evans-damage-country-s-reputation.html


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 3, 2015)

Malta's minister of justice demonstrating he has no idea what the word rehabilitate means


----------



## belboid (Jan 3, 2015)

overseas move (all but) ruled out - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30662865


----------



## trashpony (Jan 3, 2015)

belboid said:


> overseas move (all but) ruled out - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30662865


Ahahahahaha.


----------



## toggle (Jan 3, 2015)

oh dear.


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 3, 2015)

He claims to have known nothing of the offer anyway. 

Yeah right. You lieing rapist.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 3, 2015)

Gutted. Not. 

It's good to see the ministry of justice stepping up though.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 4, 2015)

How are Hibs Maltese? I don't know much about Associated Soccerball but I've read Trainspotting, so I'm pretty sure they're an Edinburgh team.


----------



## marty21 (Jan 4, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> How are Hibs Maltese? I don't know much about Associated Soccerball but I've read Trainspotting, so I'm pretty sure they're an Edinburgh team.


they are a Maltese team, there is also an Scottish soccerball team called hibs


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 4, 2015)

marty21 said:


> they are a Maltese team, there is also an Scottish soccerball team called hibs


Right. Stupid soccerball team names.


----------



## marty21 (Jan 4, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Right. Stupid soccerball team names.


Atm it doesn't matter about the team names , he isn't playing for anyone apart from a pub team if they'll have him


----------



## J Ed (Jan 4, 2015)

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local...nnounce-ched-evans-signing-tomorrow-1-7031886



> An unnamed League One club may announce the signing of Ched Evans tomorrow, Professional Footballers’ Association chief executive Gordon Taylor has revealed.
> 
> Taylor said this morning a press conference will be held on Monday by a club wishing to sign the former Sheffield United player and convicted rapist, but he would not name which team it is.
> 
> ...


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 4, 2015)

BBC says it 'understands' that Oldham 'is set to sign' him and are holding a news conference tomorrow

Looks like it's happening


----------



## campanula (Jan 4, 2015)

never regretted fleeing Oldham as soon as I  could and have been unswerving in my refusal to ever entertain the idea of stepping off the M62 for even a fleeting visit (still have a brother living there)...but just occasionally, the taste of an Uncle Joe's mint ball or the vision of a mug of hot steaming Vimto sends little neural messages of nostalgia...and Oldham was always my club despite the glamour of Manchester. Loyal in the old 4th division, Jimmy Frizzell days - I even worked on one of the pie stalls throughout my early teens. In truth, the joys of football wore off for me back in the 90s...but I shudder, even so.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 4, 2015)

Are football people really thick or something?

Oldham, or any club that goes near this scumbag will face the same shit Sheffield did, consent isn't a hard concept, nor is not taking on a rapist.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 4, 2015)

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/oldham-being-named-league-one-8379869

Have a look at the reporter's name


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 4, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/oldham-being-named-league-one-8379869
> 
> Have a look at the reporter's name



What a great signature to have. He must be sad cheques are going out of fashion. Take my money, you...


----------



## Wilf (Jan 4, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Are football people really thick or something?
> 
> Oldham, or any club that goes near this scumbag will face the same shit Sheffield did, consent isn't a hard concept, nor is not taking on a rapist.


Yep. I always had a soft spot for Oldham as an unglamorous Lancashire side who occasionally punched well above their weight. They can fuck right off now (if this actually goes ahead).


----------



## yardbird (Jan 4, 2015)

BBC 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30671692


----------



## trashpony (Jan 4, 2015)

> An online petition against Oldham signing Evans was set up on Sunday and garnered more than 5,000 signatures within 90 minutes - a rate of roughly one signature per second.



He's club poison. Good


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 4, 2015)

I wonder how Oldham will justify this in their statement


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 4, 2015)

twentythreedom said:


> I wonder how Oldham will justify this in their statement



Rehabilitated, mistake, second chance etc. 


Rape apology buzz-word bingo.


----------



## campanula (Jan 4, 2015)

petition signed - furiously


----------



## brogdale (Jan 4, 2015)

How long before the fuckwits at OFC realise what they're contemplating? Within 36 hours, I'd have thought?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 4, 2015)

Petition is here btw


----------



## Wilf (Jan 4, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Petition is here btw


signed - now over 10k


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 4, 2015)

Signed. Used a different email because change.org spam the shit out of you.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 4, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Rehabilitated, mistake, second chance etc.
> 
> 
> Rape apology buzz-word bingo.


It's weird isn't it. His stance that he is innocent negates any possibility of rehabilitation etc, yet you're probably right re what is said - even though it'll be meaningless. It's fucking bizarre, and extremely unpleasant too 

Oh well we shall see


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 4, 2015)

twentythreedom said:


> It's weird isn't it. His stance that he is innocent negates any possibility of rehabilitation etc, yet you're probably right re what is said - even though it'll be meaningless. It's fucking bizarre, and extremely unpleasant too
> 
> Oh well we shall see



It's what gets my goat most, if he was genuinely repentant from the off I would not have a problem with him returning to football, he could have been a force for good, educating folk in the proper way to behave, but no, he's a vile rapist, so fuck him.


----------



## hash tag (Jan 4, 2015)

Step 1, petition signed...


----------



## yardbird (Jan 5, 2015)

This morning's update;
Oldham reconsidering and petition at 20,000.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30678251


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 5, 2015)

This whole 2nd chance spin is boiling my piss. He is already getting a 2nd chance by being out on license IMO and what is he doing with it? Throwing his priviledged toys out of the pram and showing zero remorse or reflection.

Being out on license means he hasn't actually 'done his time' as people keep saying also. The whole conversation about returning to football in any way should wait until the 5 years is up at the very least.


----------



## belboid (Jan 5, 2015)

Oldham sponsors raising objections, looks like this deal will fall through too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30678251

(oh, that is the same link yardbird posted..)


----------



## marty21 (Jan 5, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Rehabilitated, mistake, second chance etc.
> 
> 
> Rape apology buzz-word bingo.


 that is the major point - he isn't rehabilitated at all - hasn't admitted his guilt, posted a bizarre video about being unfaithful - he is being badly advised. Plus his supporters continue to harass the rape victim .


----------



## yardbird (Jan 5, 2015)

Derail/
Just to say that Gordon Taylor has the most irritating voice.

Meanwhile, Verlin Rainwater Solutions, which sponsors Oldham's main stand, has announced that it will end its association with the club if Evans signs.


----------



## StoneRoad (Jan 5, 2015)

signed petition - not far short of 25,000 now


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 5, 2015)

> More than 20,000 people have signed an online petition urging the Latics not to sign Evans, raising the prospect of a dramatic U-turn by shocked officials.



Why are officials 'shocked'? Have they been living on Mars throughout all this or something?


----------



## bluescreen (Jan 5, 2015)

I've just seen the witch hunt meme on a facebook thread and despair. 'He is innocent and is appealing.' I really despair.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 5, 2015)

Pretty astonishing the thought processes these clubs are going through. Still, each one of these rejections - as this will no doubt end up being - must be shattering for him. Good.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2015)

hopefully in the final indignity he'll be boyed off by his local sunday league team


----------



## dylanredefined (Jan 5, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Pretty astonishing the thought processes these clubs are going through. Still, each one of these rejections - as this will no doubt end up being - must be shattering for him. Good.



 Supposedly good player going cheap is what they think.
 The management probably think the controversy will blow over.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 5, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Why are officials 'shocked'? Have they been living on Mars throughout all this or something?



Came on here to post this.   but a bit  too.


----------



## bluescreen (Jan 5, 2015)

Interesting the overwhelming antipathy to Evans on the Fail site. I wasn't expecting that.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 5, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> hopefully in the final indignity he'll be boyed off by his local sunday league team



And get booted out by his parents, dumped by his girlfriend and turned into a fly by God.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 5, 2015)

yardbird said:


> Meanwhile, Verlin Rainwater Solutions, which sponsors Oldham's main stand, has announced that it will end its association with the club if Evans signs.



Respect to Verlin Rainwater Solutions  

But why the hell does that roofing company show more suss and awareness than the directors and management of a *fucking football club*? 

If VRS can think ahead and do the right thing, why are OAFC so slow to?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> And get booted out by his parents, dumped by his girlfriend and turned into a fly by God.


irvine welsh?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 5, 2015)

Multiple people at work were slagging off Evans' victim today and talking about how unfair things are on Evans. Urgh.


----------



## quiet guy (Jan 5, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Respect to Verlin Rainwater Solutions
> 
> But why the hell does that roofing company show more suss and awareness than the directors and management of a *fucking football club*?
> 
> If VRS can think ahead and do the right thing, why are OAFC so slow to?



Remember that this is the club who previously signed Lee Hughes on his release from prison for killing someone by dangerous driving so though that they wouldn't have any issues.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 5, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> irvine welsh?



Aye, The Granton Star Cause.


----------



## toggle (Jan 5, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> Interesting the overwhelming antipathy to Evans on the Fail site. I wasn't expecting that.



DM does not like immorality, sex offenders, mockery of justice or unrepentant criminals. unrepentant criminals who actively encourage harassment of victims of crime tick all the boxes for being hated by the DM


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Aye, The Granton Star Cause.


they made a really bad film of that. So so cheaply done, but the dialogue worked because of the source.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 5, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> they made a really bad film of that. So so cheaply done, but the dialogue worked because of the source.



The dialogue is mint. _I'll shite in ya mooth. _


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 5, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It's what gets my goat most, if he was genuinely repentant from the off I would not have a problem with him returning to football,


So basically if someone has a different recollection of events than the court ruling they should never publicly air them and accept they have no right to an appeal. In spite of abundant evidence that people can legitimately have very different recollections of the same events. This is why we have courts, to judge between accounts, and those judgements can (and have) been wrong. 

If you believed people convicted of a sex offence should be barred from playing professional football, that would be a fair opinion to hold. But that is not what you all are seething about.

You are hounding someone because they believe themselves innocent and entitled to try to make an appeal. Very darkly authoritarian. Once the court has spoken it becomes immoral to challenge the courts version of events and they must be barred from their profession for their opinion.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 5, 2015)

Nobody has opposed him appealing at all. Care to link to where they have?

He's currently a convicted sex offender who hasn't even finished serving his sentence. Defend him some more.


----------



## belboid (Jan 5, 2015)

ferrelhadley said:


> So basically if someone has a different recollection of events than the court ruling they should never publicly air them and accept they have no right to an appeal. In spite of abundant evidence that people can legitimately have very different recollections of the same events. This is why we have courts, to judge between accounts, and those judgements can (and have) been wrong.
> 
> If you believed people convicted of a sex offence should be barred from playing professional football, that would be a fair opinion to hold. But that is not what you all are seething about.
> 
> You are hounding someone because they believe themselves innocent and entitled to try to make an appeal. Very darkly authoritarian. Once the court has spoken it becomes immoral to challenge the courts version of events and they must be barred from their profession for their opinion.


stop making shit up


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2015)

Hush, a scientist has spoken.

He's doesn't know the facts of the case (see appeal stuff) and doesn't really know on what basis people have been posting mind (i.e no one has rejected Evans defence because the court has, but because it's bullshit).  But still, he is a scientist. _He's a scientist and he wants his sausages._


----------



## Favelado (Jan 5, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Multiple people at work were slagging off Evans' victim today and talking about how unfair things are on Evans. Urgh.



Did I see on here that Watkins is appealing as well? Poor lamb.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 5, 2015)

Evans has already had one appeal rejected. Perhaps that's 'darkly authoritarian' too? Maybe we should let him have a good old kick about for a million a week after all until he's inevitably cleared, miscarriage of justice that he is.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 5, 2015)

ferrelhadley said:


> You are hounding someone because they believe themselves innocent and entitled to try to make an appeal. Very darkly authoritarian. Once the court has spoken it becomes immoral to challenge the courts version of events and they must be barred from their profession for their opinion.


Are you certain he believes himself innocent?  Go on, spit it out - _you think that his appeal should be read as meaning he genuinely believes himself innocent don't you?_


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2015)

there will be no follow up post to feralhadleys latest brainfart. Never responds to counters, just mumbles 'marxists..idiocy..hypocrite' then moves on. Don't know what happened there really, was once a sunny poster and informative with it.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2015)

ferrelhadley said:


> So basically if someone has a different recollection of events than the court ruling they should never publicly air them and accept they have no right to an appeal. In spite of abundant evidence that people can legitimately have very different recollections of the same events. This is why we have courts, to judge between accounts, and those judgements can (and have) been wrong.
> 
> If you believed people convicted of a sex offence should be barred from playing professional football, that would be a fair opinion to hold. But that is not what you all are seething about.
> 
> You are hounding someone because they believe themselves innocent and entitled to try to make an appeal. Very darkly authoritarian. Once the court has spoken it becomes immoral to challenge the courts version of events and they must be barred from their profession for their opinion.



The point is that many of his supporters are arguing that he has a right to a career as a professional footballer (which would make him a role model for young men) based upon the notion of rehabilitation.  However, the failure to accept he's done anything wrong is a bar to rehabilitation in any meaningful sense.  If he believes he's innocent, that's fine; I absolutely support his right to appeal.  But you cant have it both ways, either he's innocent or he's a rehabilitated criminal.  As things stand, he's an unrehabilitated convicted rapist.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 5, 2015)

Well if he's just doing drive-bys he can fuck off back to talking about the weather.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 5, 2015)

Can't say I'm a great fan of the 'role model' argument (against him getting back into football), largely because the idea that certain groups are role models is anyway a bit weird [not aimed at you athos, just shootin the breeze].  I'm just happy an unrepentant millionaire-ish rapist is getting a bit of shit in his life, particularly after the hounding of his victim.  Not particularly high minded, but fuck him.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 5, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Did I see on here that Watkins is appealing as well? Poor lamb.


the appeal was turned down


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Can't say I'm a great fan of the 'role model' argument (against him getting back into football), largely because the idea that certain groups are role models is anyway a bit weird [not aimed at you athos, just shootin the breeze].  I'm just happy an unrepentant millionaire-ish rapist is getting a bit of shit in his life, particularly after the hounding of his victim.  Not particularly high minded, but fuck him.



I guess role model is shorthand for something more complex than that; something which goes to the message we, as a society, are sending out to young men and women about rape.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 5, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Can't say I'm a great fan of the 'role model' argument (against him getting back into football), largely because the idea that certain groups are role models is anyway a bit weird [not aimed at you athos, just shootin the breeze].  I'm just happy an unrepentant millionaire-ish rapist is getting a bit of shit in his life, particularly after the hounding of his victim.  Not particularly high minded, but fuck him.



There's lots of professions that you'd be barred from by account of you being a convicted sex offender. Working with kids is one of them. Surely footballers regularly do whether it be contact with minors through the club's junior teams or any number of visiting schools/fans etc.


----------



## binka (Jan 5, 2015)

J Ed said:


> Multiple people at work were slagging off Evans' victim today and talking about how unfair things are on Evans. Urgh.


woman at work today refered to evans as being 'hounded', mind you she also refered to the recent historic sex abuse cases as 'witch hunts'. not sure what it is that makes some people determined to be rape apologists.


----------



## co-op (Jan 5, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Can't say I'm a great fan of the 'role model' argument (against him getting back into football), largely because the idea that certain groups are role models is anyway a bit weird



And the idea that certain groups* "need" positive role models is fucking patronising too.


*minority ethnicities, working class youths, women etc etc


----------



## weepiper (Jan 5, 2015)

binka said:


> woman at work today refered to evans as being 'hounded', mind you she also refered to the recent historic sex abuse cases as 'witch hunts'. not sure what it is that makes some people determined to be rape apologists.


Good, he should be fucking hounded, rapist cunt.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 5, 2015)

All of these chats are moot. The pertinent FACT is this horrible cunt will be greeted with " SEX CASE SEX CASE HANG HIM HANG HIM HANG HIM!" whenever the man plays. Trust the working class to deal with it. He will fuck off crying and he will be an excellent "role model", one who every kid knows not to emulate.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 5, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> There's lots of professions that you'd be barred from by account of you being a convicted sex offender. Working with kids is one of them. Surely footballers regularly do whether it be contact with minors through the club's junior teams or any number of visiting schools/fans etc.


Yeah, certainly, there's the whole CRB thing, you're right - I'm not sure how anybody on the sex offenders register can be part of an organisation that engages with kids at any level.  To be honest, I don't even object to the 'role model' _argument_, it's just I have a thing about the _term_.  It's one of those phrases you're as likely to hear the mail coming out with as somebody more honourably... but anyway, I won't derail.  I'm just happy to acknowledge my own schadenfreude on this. 

edit - but co-op said it better.


----------



## 8115 (Jan 6, 2015)

co-op said:


> And the idea that certain groups* "need" positive role models is fucking patronising too.
> 
> 
> *minority ethnicities, working class youths, women etc etc


Young people?

Like it or not, footballers are role models and clubs have to accept that, they probably make money out of it.


----------



## JTG (Jan 6, 2015)

Yeah, I think the whole 'role model' thing is daft. Like anyone ever took more notice of a footballer's behaviour than that of their own relatives, guardians etc etc


----------



## Wilf (Jan 6, 2015)

8115 said:


> Young people?
> 
> Like it or not, footballers are role models and clubs have to accept that, they probably make money out of it.


As in 'John Terry shouldn't be a racist because he's a role model'?  What about 'John Terry shouldn't be a racist', doesn't that cover it?


----------



## 8115 (Jan 6, 2015)

Wilf said:


> As in 'John Terry shouldn't be a racist because he's a role model'?  What about 'John Terry shouldn't be a racist', doesn't that cover it?


As in, even more reason not to employ a convicted rapist because kids look up to footballers.


----------



## 8115 (Jan 6, 2015)

Or, maybe John Terry shouldn't be captain of Chelsea because of his past behaviour, role model etc. I don't think its very controversial.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2015)

kids do have heroes. Just glad he-man never turned out to be the king rapist of eternia tbh.


----------



## Sue (Jan 6, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> kids do have heroes. Just glad he-man never turned out to be the king rapist of eternia tbh.


Not yet anyway...


----------



## JTG (Jan 6, 2015)

The only thing about my favourite footballers that I wanted to emulate as a kid was their performances. Even before I was out of short trousers I was aware that good footballers could be utter nobheads in other areas of life. The whole role model thing is middle aged people and tabloid editors projecting their values. It's patronising guff


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jan 6, 2015)

Athos said:


> I guess role model is shorthand for something more complex than that; something which goes to the message we, as a society, are sending out to young men and women about rape.



Agreed. It's not about being a 'role model' per se, but about the wider issue of what it says about our general outlook towards rape and the power relationships (of all types) between men and women, what it says about how far capital and other types of power will go to protect certain things and at whose expense, etc. It's a messy tangle of issues at play, not just as simple as 'man raped woman, kids will think that's okay if he is allowed to play again' - although there is an element of that that cannot be ignored, since we only have to look at his 'supporters' and their vile, disgusting behaviour towards the victim - this all plays into a far wider discussion we need to have and we have been having that at the very basic end of it comes down to whose fucking side are we on, those who wield power in sometimes violent and/or sexual ways and are protected by various systems, or those who are victims of power imbalances and who are continually silenced and further abused as a result?

Or something.


----------



## co-op (Jan 6, 2015)

8115 said:


> Young people?
> 
> Like it or not, footballers are role models and clubs have to accept that, they probably make money out of it.



I don't think there is such a group as "young people" in any meaningful sense. Most of them don't give a shit about football anyway.

The point is that the idea of "positive role models" and the "need" for them presupposes that _most_ of the _actual_ role models that are 'modelling" behaviour to target groups are negative role models, i.e their own families, their own peers, 'ordinary people'. I never hear about the need for bankers' children to have positive role models, it's assumed that their social cohorts are already "positive" enough.


----------



## JTG (Jan 6, 2015)

co-op said:


> I don't think there is such a group as "young people" in any meaningful sense. Most of them don't give a shit about football anyway.
> 
> The point is that the idea of "positive role models" and the "need" for them presupposes that _most_ of the _actual_ role models that are 'modelling" behaviour to target groups are negative role models, i.e their own families, their own peers, 'ordinary people'. I never hear about the need for bankers' children to have positive role models, it's assumed that their social cohorts are already "positive" enough.


Also, when Mo Farah gets held up as a 'positive role model' for young British muslims. As though they're in desperate need of someone to show them some moral fibre. It's insulting bullshit


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 7, 2015)

goldenecitrone said:


> What a great signature to have. He must be sad cheques are going out of fashion. Take my money, you...



o/t, but the register of births and deaths in Brighton used to be a 'William Anker', a friend at college (born 1970 I think) had it on his birth certificate and would proudly show it to people.


----------



## Yelkcub (Jan 7, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> kids do have heroes. Just glad he-man never turned out to be the king rapist of eternia tbh.



I think Shippy has that manga....


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 7, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> o/t, but the register of births and deaths in Brighton used to be a 'William Anker', a friend at college (born 1970 I think) had it on his birth certificate and would proudly show it to people.



We had Mike Hunt at work...


----------



## The Octagon (Jan 7, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> kids do have heroes. Just glad he-man never turned out to be the king rapist of eternia tbh.





Yelkcub said:


> I think Shippy has that manga....



Or just watch Robot Chicken, if they haven't done it already they probably will.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 7, 2015)

JTG said:


> Yeah, I think the whole 'role model' thing is daft. Like anyone ever took more notice of a footballer's behaviour than that of their own relatives, guardians etc etc



If your kids are just copying everything Mario Balotelli does then you must be a pretty shit parent.

Also your kids aren't rich, so they won't get away with it.


----------



## killer b (Jan 7, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> Also your kids aren't rich, so they won't get away with it.


except, they will. You don't have to be rich to get away with rape, just male.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 7, 2015)

killer b said:


> except, they will. You don't have to be rich to get away with rape, just male.



Don't think Balotelli has been accused of rape.


----------



## killer b (Jan 7, 2015)

Ah, fair enough. Misread.


----------



## Jay Park (Jan 7, 2015)

didn't Balotelli once give a wad of cash to a homeless person?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 7, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> If your kids are just copying everything Mario Balotelli does then you must be a pretty shit parent.



High profile crimes can spawn copycat acts though. If someone gets convicted for rape and then gets their privileged role back that does send a message to society. There's no getting away from that. If it was divorced from wider society you wouldn't get muppets threatening rape on twitter.


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2015)

Oldham deal in place, Sky reporting


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 7, 2015)

Thinkbubble from Oldham's chairman/board member(s)/"PR man" :

"We don't give the slightest bit of a flying fuck what you think"


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 7, 2015)

belboid said:


> Oldham deal in place, Sky reporting



He was always going to be signed up by some desperate club, its all business in the end.  I'm just glad it's not my club.  Oldham do seem to be making themselves the spiritual home for criminals, killers and rapists all welcome at Boundary Park if they can knock in the odd goal or two.


----------



## The Octagon (Jan 7, 2015)

Teaboy said:


> He was always going to be signed up by some desperate club, its all business in the end.  I'm just glad it's not my club.  Oldham do seem to be making themselves the spiritual home for criminals, killers and rapists all welcome at Boundary Park if they can knock in the odd goal or two.



True, I suppose the only advantage is that now the fans will get to have their say directly to him rather than through petitions, should be interesting.

As a fan of the club least likely to sign Evans ever I can say this with ease, but I imagine there might be quite a few Oldham fans thinking of cancelling season tickets or dropping the club altogether.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 7, 2015)

The Octagon said:


> As a fan of the club least likely to sign Evans ever I can say this with ease, but I imagine there might be quite a few Oldham fans thinking of cancelling season tickets or dropping the club altogether.



Probably but there's probably just as many working on their new terrace songs which will no doubt include such hilarity along the lines of _Ched's gonna rape you_ and various references to _locking your daughters up because Ched is in town_.  Not a comment about Oldham per se just the nature of football terrace 'banter'.

What happens if he starts banging in the goals now?  Recall to the Welsh squad?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 7, 2015)

And obviously this is a foot in the door for him with a view to being redeemed by _all_ clubs once it all dies down a bit if he keeps his head down.


----------



## Yelkcub (Jan 7, 2015)

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ay-for-deal-with-league-one-club-9961432.html

The father-in-law appears to be guaranteeing against Oldham's losses


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> And obviously this is a foot in the door for him with a view to being redeemed by _all_ clubs once it all dies down a bit if he keeps his head down.



Exactly.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 7, 2015)

Yelkcub said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ay-for-deal-with-league-one-club-9961432.html
> 
> The father-in-law appears to be guaranteeing against Oldham's losses


 That really is shcking. In effect, a bribe to take him on.


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2015)

The Octagon said:


> True, I suppose the only advantage is that now the fans will get to have their say directly to him rather than through petitions, should be interesting.
> 
> As a fan of the club least likely to sign Evans ever I can say this with ease, but I imagine there might be quite a few Oldham fans thinking of cancelling season tickets or dropping the club altogether.


there were reportedly a few loud voices of condemnation coming form inside the dressing room, as well. Hopefully they'll still be allowed to speak out


----------



## Wilf (Jan 7, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> And obviously this is a foot in the door for him with a view to being redeemed by _all_ clubs once it all dies down a bit if he keeps his head down.


 Yep, definitely, and in doing so making a few million for oldham.  Dirty stuff all round.  Anyway, be interesting to see what happens when he goes in for his first 50/50 ball (providing he's match fit to play).


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 7, 2015)

Interesting article as to why Oldham don't give a fuck: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...out-signing-the-convicted-rapist-9958836.html


----------



## Yelkcub (Jan 7, 2015)

belboid said:


> there were reportedly a few loud voices of condemnation coming form inside the dressing room, as well. Hopefully they'll still be allowed to speak out



I know footballers earn lots of money, but they'll see needing to maintain their families' current standard of living the same as you or I. Surely, 'you have to work closely with an unrepentant rapist' is an order an employee can reasonably refuse>


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 7, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse : That's fascinating -- and offers some interesting confirmation of Oldham's 'The Man Don't Give a Fuck' attitude.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 7, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Bahnhof Strasse : That's fascinating -- and offers some interesting confirmation of Oldham's 'The Man Don't Give a Fuck' attitude.



I like the way that it's the ex-filth who's keen to fill the club with ex-cons.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 7, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Interesting article as to why Oldham don't give a fuck: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...out-signing-the-convicted-rapist-9958836.html





> Into this grim hand-to-mouth financial existence emerged *the prospect of signing Ched Evans,* six weeks ago. It *was pressed by* Corney’s co-director Barry Owen, *a retired Greater Manchester police superintendent* and representative of the club’s supporters’ trust, which was allocated a seat on the Oldham board and a 3 per cent stake after raising £100,000 to help the club out of administration.


----------



## campanula (Jan 7, 2015)

Fucking blood money. Yep, I am looking forward to a slew of crap jewellery stores being targeted (Ratner's stylee). And the PFA have been woeful in this whole business.
Gotta wonder how Mr Massey would feel if it was his daughter who was raped and filmed by sniggering bastards...rather than the actual victim...who presumably doesn't count or has been placed in some category of slapper.
I spent years supporting Oldham, as did all my family, but this has just made me feel  ashamed of the connection...I hope the fans react with some fucking decency and are not swayed by the  morally bankrupt greed and desperation of the administration.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 7, 2015)

Any details been published on who the rich 'father-in-law' is? Hope there isn't a Salford connection.


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Any details been published on who the rich 'father-in-law' is? Hope there isn't a Salford connection.


Prestons at Bolton (formerly Cottrills)
http://www.prestonsdiamonds.co.uk/


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 7, 2015)

belboid said:


> Prestons at Bolton (formerly Cottrills)
> http://www.prestonsdiamonds.co.uk/



Ah right yeah. If I'm not mistaken that's even ched's gf modelling on the 'about us' page.

http://www.prestonsdiamonds.co.uk/aboutus.asp


----------



## hash tag (Jan 7, 2015)

Just a slight side to this, i imagine the club that takes him will have to employ extra security, home and away, another, albeit a small further financial cost to them.
Just cant believe the fil. What kind of man, father of a daughter, goes out of his way to support a bastard like that.
I would be happy to have words on the terraces.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 7, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Ah right yeah. If I'm not mistaken that's even ched's gf modelling on the 'about us' page.
> 
> http://www.prestonsdiamonds.co.uk/aboutus.asp



Notice they are allowed to use Rolex in their shop titles. Wonder how much Rolex would like to be associated with rape? https://www.facebook.com/rolex


----------



## Wilf (Jan 7, 2015)

I _think_ I agree with Marina Hyde in this piece (she normally writes well, but this isn't her best) - on the role model bit, but even more so on rape sentencing being the bigger issue.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/jan/06/ched-evans-law-marina-hyde
edit - certainly don't agree with the _headline_, I do have a problem with the clubs seeking to sign him.  Anyway, i think there's something useful in there about stopping clubs signing him being 'easy victories'.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 7, 2015)

Wilf said:


> I _think_ I agree with Marina Hyde in this piece (she normally writes well, but this isn't her best) - on the role model bit, but even more so on rape sentencing being the bigger issue.
> http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/jan/06/ched-evans-law-marina-hyde



I think it is possible to be equally as pissed off with the ludicrously short sentences given for rape as it is to be pissed off with the rapist themselves.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 7, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I think it is possible to be equally as pissed off with the ludicrously short sentences given for rape as it is to be pissed off with the rapist themselves.


 Absolutely.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 7, 2015)

Actually, on rereading it (I'm genuinely dopey today - new meds), whilst there's truth in the piece, some of it is quite offensive:


> I don’t see any petitions on rape sentencing, unfortunately – an absence that adds to a nagging sense about this latest chapter in the Great Outrage Wars: that clicktivism, and feminist clicktivism too often, is overly preoccupied with fighting the battles it can win relatively easily, rather than the much more ambitious ones it should try to win


Yes, it's true, 'clicktivism' has maybe displaced genuine political activity, bu there are a hell of a lot of campaigners putting in some real graft around rape, dv etc.


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2015)

Wilf said:


> I _think_ I agree with Marina Hyde in this piece (she normally writes well, but this isn't her best) - on the role model bit, but even more so on rape sentencing being the bigger issue.
> http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/jan/06/ched-evans-law-marina-hyde
> edit - certainly don't agree with the _headline_, I do have a problem with the clubs seeking to sign him.  Anyway, i think there's something useful in there about stopping clubs signing him being 'easy victories'.


it's a crap article. A false dichotomy and simply wrong about people not repeatedly complaining about far too light sentences.  Almost as if the shitty rag felt they need to provide a bit of pseudo-balance.


----------



## Yelkcub (Jan 7, 2015)

hash tag said:


> Just a slight side to this, i imagine the club that takes him will have to employ extra security, home and away, another, albeit a small further financial cost to them.
> Just cant believe the fil. What kind of man, father of a daughter, goes out of his way to support a bastard like that.
> I would be happy to have words on the terraces.



The sort of man who sees it as an investment. If he bribes Evans way back into football, his outlay will be nothin compared to the riches to come (possibly for his daughter, rather than him). Sick fuck.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 7, 2015)

belboid said:


> it's a crap article. A false dichotomy and simply wrong about people not repeatedly complaining about far too light sentences.  Almost as if the shitty rag felt they need to provide a bit of pseudo-balance.


 Beat you to it with my self criticism (by 3 minutes)!


----------



## hash tag (Jan 7, 2015)

Of course i would have no problems if my own daughter dated a rapist - not.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 7, 2015)

Verlin has formally ended their sponsorship. Mecca Bingo has promised to once the announcement of his signing is public. In light of the Indy's article on the club's finances and motivation, once may don the tin foil balaclava and imagine the owner wants the club to go bust, then there'd be not much in the way of his planning applications...


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2015)

I'm always quite astonished by the amount of rape apologists that there are


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 7, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I'm always quite astonished by the amount of rape apologists that there are



To be honest before this case came up I'd not really noticed. Now I feel like St. Paul on the road to Damascus!


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 7, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I'm always quite astonished by the amount of rape apologists that there are



The comments under that indy article are depressing, but it's what you come to expect.  There's even someone saying Ched Evans is being persecuted because he's white, because a black convicted criminal is playing elsewhere in the league.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 7, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Verlin has formally ended their sponsorship. Mecca Bingo has promised to once the announcement of his signing is public. In light of the Indy's article on the club's finances and motivation, once may don the tin foil balaclava and imagine the owner wants the club to go bust, then there'd be not much in the way of his planning applications...


You would think these clubs might sound out the sponsors _before_ they even fly a kite on signing evans. I'd imagine ther's fairly regular contact between the marketing departments of club and sponsor. Maybe they _do_ and get ambiguous feedback - the sponsors only taking a 'moral' stance when they see the level of public opposition.

Again, without reviving the Marina Hyde piece  , there is something ritualistic about these withdrawals of sponsorship. I find it hard to see these companies being worried about anything other than 'protecting the brand'. [edit: I think I'll enter that final sentence into the annual 'Statements of the Bleedin Obvious' competition]


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 7, 2015)

belboid said:


> it's a crap article. A false dichotomy and simply wrong about people not repeatedly complaining about far too light sentences.  Almost as if the shitty rag felt they need to provide a bit of pseudo-balance.



Just read it -- complete crap and false dichotomy as you say.

Don't agree with your second sentence though -- this is simply Marina Hyde being perverse (and worse). The David Conn articles previously were far better reads :

In the Ched Evans case the victim must always be remembered

Oldham's choice over Ched Evans : money or morals

Not sure if the above two have been linked to already? Apols if so.

Any pseudo-balance there is Marina Hyde's bizarre own IMO.


----------



## bemused (Jan 7, 2015)

I understand why people don't want to support a team he'll be playing on, but I'm also pretty sure if he was a gardener no one would even know who he is. The guy has a right to earn a living at his trade once he's out of prison.

His girlfriend seems very understanding, couldn't see my wife standing by me if I was filmed taking a drunk girl to my hotel room for a threesome. Not unless she was standing on my balls.

It's a great media story but it also seems to have the very unpleasant side effect of making his victims life even more of a misery because she keeps getting named on social media.


----------



## andysays (Jan 7, 2015)

Yelkcub said:


> The sort of man who sees it as an investment. If he bribes Evans way back into football, *his outlay will be nothin compared to the riches to come* (possibly for his daughter, rather than him). Sick fuck.



This is the bit I don't quite understand. 

Can someone with a better knowledge of football finances than me (which is probably anyone with any knowledge at all) explain how the figures match up, even if only notional figures?

On the one hand we've got the loss of sponsorship deals - one definitely gone, another expected to go, possibly others to go and likely to be other Evans-related costs to take into account, all of which the FIL has promised to cover. On the other hand there's Evans' salary for an (apparently) struggling D1 club.

Given all the publicity, Evans will surely remain tarnished by this for the rest of his potential career (even if he is eventually successful in his appeal, far more so than if he had waited for the result of that appeal and then made a comeback if successful). He's not ever going to play for Wales again or get to play for one of the real elite, is he, Oldham is surely the best he's ever likely to do?


----------



## Yelkcub (Jan 7, 2015)

His girlfriend seems very understanding, could see my wife standing by me if I was filmed taking a drunk girl to my hotel room for a threesome. Not unless she was standing on my balls.
[/QUOTE]

What about if you weren't even there when she went back to the hotel room, but you turned up and raped her later, as happened here?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 7, 2015)

Wilf said:


> You would think these clubs might sound out the sponsors _before_ they even fly a kite on signing evans. I'd imagine ther's fairly regular contact between the marketing departments of club and sponsor. Maybe they _do_ and get ambiguous feedback - the sponsors only taking a 'moral' stance when they see the level of public opposition.




I don't get that either, hence my previous comment about Verlin Rainwater Solutions showing a lot more sense and nous than Oldham seem capable of.

This suggestion that Evans's fiancee's father will cover any commercial shortfall caused by the club signing him is insane -- he'd better be careful what he promises. Costly promise, could be!

And do Oldham have _any _kind of PR section?


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2015)

bemused said:


> I understand why people don't want to support a team he'll be playing on, but I'm also pretty sure if he was a gardener no one would even know who he is. The guy has a right to earn a living


No one denies that



> at his trade


why? He can perform many roles within the same general field, but he has absolutely no _right _to carry on in his former profession.  I wouldn't be able to do so, neither would many other people. 



> It's a great media story but it also seems to have the very unpleasant side effect of making his victims life even more of a misery because she keeps getting named on social media.


what?  So we should stop complaining about this mere 'media story' because of its effect upon the woman Evans raped?  Maybe he should just tell his band of merry supporters to stop harassing her.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 7, 2015)

bemused said:


> I understand why people don't want to support a team he'll be playing on, but I'm also pretty sure if he was a gardener no one would even know who he is. The guy has a right to earn a living at his trade once he's out of prison.
> 
> His girlfriend seems very understanding, couldn't see my wife standing by me if I was filmed taking a drunk girl to my hotel room for a threesome. Not unless she was standing on my balls.
> 
> It's a great media story but it also seems to have the very unpleasant side effect of making his victims life even more of a misery because she keeps getting named on social media.



No one is arguing for one moment he can't go and mow lawns somewhere. (As long as it's not a school etc.)


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 7, 2015)

andysays said:


> This is the bit I don't quite understand.
> 
> Can someone with a better knowledge of football finances than me (which is probably anyone with any knowledge at all) explain how the figures match up, even if only notional figures?



Read this: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...out-signing-the-convicted-rapist-9958836.html


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 7, 2015)

I read and liked that article earlier on, but I'm still struggling to see any financial logic even so.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 7, 2015)

Wilf said:


> the sponsors only taking a 'moral' stance when they see the level of public opposition.



In the case of Verlin it does seem to be a moral stance on the part of the boss.

Mecca Bingo may or may not be, it's their job to protect their brand. 90% of their customers are women. Not rocket surgery.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2015)

It's sending a message that someone who abused their position to rape someone can be allowed back into a career that facilitated access to vulnerable and possibly star struck young women in the first place. 

What's next, allowing rolf harris back as a TV presenter?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2015)

'hes served his time' 

If he displayed any guilt this could be a valid argument but he hasn't.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 7, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> I read and liked that article earlier on, but I'm still struggling to see any financial logic even so.



Get him for zilch and flog him for £3m when the fuss dies down / run the club in to the ground and flog the, er, ground?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 7, 2015)

how likely is it that he'll actually play for Oldham? surely sponsors aren't going to like the profile of a convicted unrepentant rapist wearing thier name on his shirt?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 7, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> 'hes served his time'
> 
> If he displayed any guilt this could be a valid argument but he hasn't.



if he wasn't only half way through his "time" this could be a valid argument...


----------



## Wilf (Jan 7, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> And do Oldham have _any _kind of PR section?


 I was going to post something about football still having an element of old style sheepskin coat (was that dotcom's phrase?), local spiv made good style ownership Vs the modern slick corporate model, with all the trappings of modern PR.  That distinction does break down though when you think about the way Liverpool plc fucked up the Suarez thing.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 7, 2015)

Answer from DotCommunist (#1495) is more or less my answer to your post Bahnhof Strasse (#1494) ... that Indy article describes the chairman of Oldham as a gambler but this surely defies *any* kind of workable odds for the club ...


----------



## andysays (Jan 7, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Read this: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...out-signing-the-convicted-rapist-9958836.html



Yeah, I read that already. It explains why it might make sense for Oldham to sign him under the reported condition of the FIL covering all the potential losses (although isn't the idea that they could sell him on for £3m in a few years open to question?)

What I'm asking is for figures to back up the idea that the FIL will be getting a good return on his investment (to put it crudely) by bribing Oldham to sign him. 

In other words, what sort of salary are they likely to be paying him, and how does that compare to the lost sponsorships etc?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2015)

Gonna give the cops/stewards a bit of work at the football ground with cries of 'rapist' and projectiles being thrown etc, having worked in a football ground, i don't envy any stewards who have to be there on the first matchday... And I predict this will lose Oldham huge numbers of ticket sales


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 7, 2015)

bemused said:


> It's a great media story but it also seems to have the very unpleasant side effect of making his victims life even more of a misery because she keeps getting named on social media.



His victim's life is made a misery because he refuses to acknowledge what he has done leading his fans to protest his innocence and harass her. Fuck him.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 7, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Answer from DotCommunist (#1495) is more or less my answer to your post Bahnhof Strasse (#1494) ... that Indy article describes the chariaman of Oldham as a gambler but this surely defies *any* kind of workable odds for the club ...




Which leads me to don the tin-foil and point out...

22 acres of land around Boundary Park / plans for a 120-room hotel, a gym, 60,000 square feet of office space and 553 flats...


----------



## JTG (Jan 7, 2015)

andysays said:


> Yeah, I read that already. It explains why it might make sense for Oldham to sign him under the reported condition of the FIL covering all the potential losses (although isn't the idea that they could sell him on for £3m in a few years open to question?)
> 
> What I'm asking is for figures to back up the idea that the FIL will be getting a good return on his investment (to put it crudely) by bribing Oldham to sign him.
> 
> In other words, what sort of salary are they likely to be paying him, and how does that compare to the lost sponsorships etc?


At that level, probably between five and ten grand a week


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 7, 2015)

andysays said:


> Yeah, I read that already. It explains why it might make sense for Oldham to sign him under the reported condition of the FIL covering all the potential losses (although isn't the idea that they could sell him on for £3m in a few years open to question?)
> 
> What I'm asking is for figures to back up the idea that the FIL will be getting a good return on his investment (to put it crudely) by bribing Oldham to sign him.
> 
> In other words, what sort of salary are they likely to be paying him, and how does that compare to the lost sponsorships etc?



His daughter is in love with him. He wants her daughter to be married to a top-flight footballer, albeit a rapist one.


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> how likely is it that he'll actually play for Oldham? surely sponsors aren't going to like the profile of a convicted unrepentant rapist wearing thier name on his shirt?


Sports Direct are the shirt sponsor - £1mill a year. They've said they'll continue to back the club.  The tossers


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 7, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> 'hes served his time'
> 
> If he displayed any guilt this could be a valid argument but he hasn't.



And he hasn't finished serving his sentence anyway.


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2015)

JTG said:


> At that level, probably between five and ten grand a week


you kidding? £1500-2000 is being reported


----------



## andysays (Jan 7, 2015)

JTG said:


> At that level, probably between five and ten grand a week



That's your estimate of his salary? (like I said before, I have absolutely no idea about this)

Do we know anything about the size of the sponsorship deals, or does anyone want to hazard a guess?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 7, 2015)

well I'll be going elsewhere for trackie bottoms from now on.


----------



## JTG (Jan 7, 2015)

belboid said:


> you kidding? £1500-2000 is being reported


Fair enough, not read any reports. My lot have had players on more than that a division lower (which may be more of a comment on the mismanagement at BRFC than anything else)


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 7, 2015)

belboid said:


> Sports Direct are the shirt sponsor - £1mill a year. They've said they'll continue to back the club.  The tossers



Of course, if you're looking for any level of morality or even basic decency then Mike Ashley is not your man.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 7, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Which leads me to don the tin-foil and point out...
> 
> 22 acres of land around Boundary Park / plans for a 120-room hotel, a gym, 60,000 square feet of office space and 553 flats...



Time for David Conn to broaden his detailed investigations IMO -- wouldn't be surprised if he's starting detective work already. He has excellent form for exposing this sort of thing.


----------



## JTG (Jan 7, 2015)

andysays said:


> That's your estimate of his salary? (like I said before, I have absolutely no idea about this)
> 
> Do we know anything about the size of the sponsorship deals, or does anyone want to hazard a guess?


Primary shirt sponsors c£1 million a year
Secondary shirt sponsors couple of hundred grand


----------



## andysays (Jan 7, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> His daughter is in love with him. *He wants her daughter to be married to a top-flight footballer*, albeit a rapist one.



Depends on your/his definition of top flight, but surely that's never going to happen now?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 7, 2015)

To be honest, if he ever makes it onto the field he's an injury waitng to happen. Hasn't played since 2012 (?) and will struggle to get match fit to play much of a role this season - along with the reception he'll get from opposing players.  None of that's really the issue here, but it is a bit of a risk for Oldham in purely footballing terms.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 7, 2015)

andysays said:


> Depends on your/his definition of top flight, but surely that's never going to happen now?



I think a lot of people are still in denial and feel that all this nasty rape business will blow-over.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 7, 2015)

JTG said:


> Fair enough, not read any reports. My lot have had players on more than that a division lower (which may be more of a comment on the mismanagement at BRFC than anything else)



They'd be players who'd had big offers from other teams though. He'd be on a lot less I'm sure seeing as no-one else would take him.


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2015)

JTG said:


> Fair enough, not read any reports. My lot have had players on more than that a division lower (which may be more of a comment on the mismanagement at BRFC than anything else)


Really?  Bloody hell. I think 10-12k was the absolute top for a player when we were in League 1, and significantly lower now.  Which may explain our current position, of course


----------



## toggle (Jan 7, 2015)

bemused said:


> I understand why people don't want to support a team he'll be playing on, but I'm also pretty sure if he was a gardener no one would even know who he is. The guy has a right to earn a living at his trade once he's out of prison.
> 
> His girlfriend seems very understanding, couldn't see my wife standing by me if I was filmed taking a drunk girl to my hotel room for a threesome. Not unless she was standing on my balls.
> 
> It's a great media story but it also seems to have the very unpleasant side effect of making his victims life even more of a misery because she keeps getting named on social media.





and you really need to cut the rape apologism shit. he did not take a woman,  lets repeat that  - WOMAN - to a hotel room. he arrived and raped a woman already there. if you weren't aware of even basic facts like that, then perhaps ypou need to educate yourself before commenting on the case

nope, eh's got a right to earn a living, not a right to be a footballer. 

and the behavior of evans supporters is not the result of condemnation of evans, except in the fevered imaginations of those who believe it is right to punish her for the fact that evans faced consequences for raping her.


----------



## andysays (Jan 7, 2015)

JTG said:


> Primary shirt sponsors c£1 million a year
> Secondary shirt sponsors couple of hundred grand



So on the plus side he might be earning £100k (that's going with belboid's higher figure), but on the other, FIL is already committed to covering a couple of hundred grand in lost sponsorship, probably similar from a second, and that figure could still go up.

Unless they are convinced Evans will still be able to increase his earning power substantially over the next couple of years (and I reckon that's doubtful), this is not what you'd call a canny investment of the FIL's part.

ETA: figures revised because I miscalculated originally


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 7, 2015)

I honestly think that as a player he'll drift into obscurity, he's been out of the game for a while and despite his extreme arrogance his confidence will have taken a blow.  He'll never fully fit in with a changing room ever again, plus with all that baggage he can't afford to have a bad game let alone a bad run.

Besides all that he was only a decent prospect before all this happened, nothing more - I doubt many would have heard of him if he hadnt got all rapey.


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2015)

andysays said:


> ETA: figures revised because I miscalculated originally


ooohh, _just _in time


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2015)

Teaboy said:


> I honestly think that as a player he'll drift into obscurity, he's been out of the game for a while and despite his extreme arrogance his confidence will have taken a blow.  Besides all that he was only a decent prospect before all this happened, nothing more - I doubt many would have heard of him if he hadnt got all rapey.


He was probably better than that, not the finished article, but well on his way.  Would have been a good championship level player, maybe even higher.  

It'll take him a while to get match fit, probly just in time for the Oldham-blades game.  Which must be the only one where he wouldn't immediately be bottled off the park as well, handily enough.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 7, 2015)

Oldham have been monumentally stupid in this, but I doubt they'll be paying _star player_ wages.  Anything other than the average for the club gives opponents too much amunition.  Same time, who can tell, maybe they are that stupid.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Jan 7, 2015)

Have Sports Direct formally announced they are backing the club?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2015)

I'd be up for going to a protest outside Oldham football ground.


----------



## campanula (Jan 7, 2015)

Wonder if the FiL is seeing (in his mind's eye) Preston Diamonds across the shirts of the Latics players.
I am at a loss to conclude why anyone would back Evans unless the daughter is pressing hard to achieve WAG status...which admittedly, sounds unfeasible to me but what do I know of the secret ambitions of young women with limited experience. I spent a number of years working for Women's Aid and can truthfully state that the issues around violence and separation, dependency and loneliness are complicated - many women had to go through numerous cycles of abuse before finally being able to break out of that terrorised mindset....although, I admit that this is probably not a fair analogy in the case of Natasha Massey


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 7, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I'd be up for going to a protest outside Oldham football ground.



Fuck that, its right on top of a hill and the wind whistles right in, its notoriously one of the coldest grounds in England.  Its trully a horrible place.

Like others I still can't get over the FIL in all this.  Evans was dating his daughter when all this happened so even if he has unwavering belief in his innocence he knows full well that Evans cheated on his daughter and knows full well it was probably numerous occasions.  Whats the matter with him?  Its enough to get a pint out of my FIL and I've never cheated on his daughter let alone raped anyone.


----------



## JTG (Jan 7, 2015)

Have the FYC taken a position?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2015)

Teaboy said:


> Fuck that, its right on top of a hill and the wind whistles right in, its notoriously one of the coldest grounds in England.  Its trully a horrible place.
> 
> Like others I still can't get over the FIL in all this.  Evans was dating his daughter when all this happened so even if he has unwavering belief in his innocence he knows full well that Evans cheated on his daughter and knows full well it was probably numerous occasions.  Whats the matter with him?  Its enough to get a pint out of my FIL and I've never cheated on his daughter let alone raped anyone.



Maybe ched has something on him.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 7, 2015)

Average pay at a League 1 club was £73,320 p.a. in 2010-11 
Given that Evans isn't going to get many other offers, I'd suggest it's unlikely they're paying him anything above average wage.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 7, 2015)

Protests are planned for outside the FIL's jewellery shop in Bolton:

https://www.facebook.com/events/591509250950296


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 7, 2015)

Lo Siento. said:


> Average pay at a League 1 club was £73,320 p.a. in 2010-11
> Given that Evans isn't going to get many other offers, I'd suggest it's unlikely they're paying him anything above average wage.



Given Oldham are broke and down the bottom and he is desperate for a club I doubt they are paying him anything close to average wage.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 7, 2015)

Sounds like they've signed him but keep bottling the press conference. BBC said sponsors had been informed.


----------



## Espresso (Jan 7, 2015)

Hold the phone! The father in in law owns Preston's of sodding Bolton?! 

Holy shit, their telly adverts are all about engagement rings and wedding rings and how they're THE prestige place to buy your wedding rings. And isn't love splendid and marriage is great and we want you to be happy for the rest of your life with your lovely new spouse and our super duper splendid rings. 
And the owner of a company with *that *image is the one who's going to pay make up a the shortfall in Ched Evans' wages. What? WHAT?
I am flabbergasted. Is he all there, the boss of Preston's of Bolton?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 7, 2015)

twentythreedom said:


> Sounds like they've signed him but keep bottling the press conference. BBC said sponsors had been informed.



Two have quit so far, Mecca promised to quit once the formal announcement comes through.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 7, 2015)

twentythreedom said:


> Sounds like they've signed him but keep bottling the press conference. BBC said sponsors had been informed.



I read a suggestion that they are waiting for the PFA to join them so they can hold a joint press conference.  Apparently that twat Gordon Taylor is off being a twat somewhere so they are going to have to wait till tomorrow when the twat will be able to join them and sit next to them to legitimise it all, whilst being a twat.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 7, 2015)

Teaboy said:


> I read a suggestion that they are waiting for the PFA to join them so they can hold a joint press conference.  Apparently that twat Gordon Taylor is off being a twat somewhere so they are going to have to wait till tomorrow when the twat will be able to join them and sit next to them to legitimise it all, whilst being a twat.




At his mother's funeral.

You heartless bastard.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 7, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> At his mother's funeral.
> 
> You heartless bastard.



You're clearly reading something into my comment that wasnt there.  Personally I don't mind the guy................the fucking twat that he is.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 7, 2015)

Teaboy said:


> You're clearly reading something into my comment that wasnt there.  Personally I don't mind the guy................the fucking twat that he is.


----------



## Yelkcub (Jan 7, 2015)

Yelkcub said:


> The sort of man who sees it as an investment. If he bribes Evans way back into football, his outlay will be nothin compared to the riches to come (possibly for his daughter, rather than him). Sick fuck.



For clarity, in response, to answers posted to this, I meant this is the FiL's perception. If he can believe it's best to encourage his daughter to stay with a rapist/believe Ched is innocent, he can certainly believe that this will blow over, Ched will score 30 in the remainder of this season and be a top premiership star with a couple of years.


----------



## bemused (Jan 7, 2015)

belboid said:


> why? He can perform many roles within the same general field, but he has absolutely no _right _to carry on in his former profession.  I wouldn't be able to do so, neither would many other people.



I assume you have a profession that bars you from working in if you are on the Sex Offenders Register? Maybe I've missed it but what law is in place to stop sex offenders being footballers?

I have no sympathy for Evens. he's a convicted rapist - so doesn't warrant it. However, I have a lot of sympathy with the premise that once released from prison people should be able to try and reintegrate into society and part of that is working.  So far the only objection I've seen to this guys working as a footballer is it's both highly paid and high profile. 

Does it gall to see a sex offender earning lots of money? Yes. Does that guttural reaction outweigh the basic concept that people who've served their time should be allowed to work any any job they are legally entitled to? Probably not. 

That's my view anyway you obviously have a different opinion. 



belboid said:


> what?  So we should stop complaining about this mere 'media story' because of its effect upon the woman Evans raped?  Maybe he should just tell his band of merry supporters to stop harassing her.



I don't think the Daily Mail etc give two shits about the victim, they just love the clicks the story attracts. I can think of at least one player who is a convicted sex offender who the DM and Co run carbon copies of this story on who is happily playing professional football so the press know it's not going to stop someone signing him. In fact now when they report about him they don't even mention it. 

At the same time the victim has had to move at least five times because of the continued publicity around the case. I'm simply questioning who is it actually helping? I don't think driving clicks to their shitty sites is helping her in slightest. Maybe someone should offer to help her sue him for damages, if that's possible - given everyone know how much he's getting paid.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 7, 2015)

bemused said:


> So far the only objection I've seen to this guys working as a footballer is it's both highly paid and high profile.



I'd suggest you look a little bit harder then.


----------



## bemused (Jan 7, 2015)

toggle said:


> and you really need to cut the rape apologism shit.



I stopped reading here. If someone arguing that offenders should have to right to work is going to be called a 'rape apologist' it's not worth taking part it.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 7, 2015)

bemused said:


> I assume you have a profession that bars you from working in if you are on the Sex Offenders Register? Maybe I've missed it but what law is in place to stop sex offenders being footballers?



He can't sit on the board of a club; unfit person.
He can't lead the mascot out on to the pitch; CRB fail
He can't have any of the youth team train at the ground when he's present; CRB fail
He can't partake in any of the charity work most clubs get their players to do if it involves children and/or vulnerable people; That sex offenders register that he's on for life can be a drag, ask Gary Glitter.


----------



## toggle (Jan 7, 2015)

bemused said:


> I stopped reading here. If someone arguing that offenders should have to right to work is going to be called a 'rape apologist' it's not worth taking part it.



because you don't want to be challenged on having lied about the circumstances of the rape?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 7, 2015)

bemused said:


> I stopped reading here. If someone arguing that offenders should have to right to work is going to be called a 'rape apologist' it's not worth taking part it.




NOT ONE PERSON HAS SUGGESTED HE HAS NO RIGHT TO WORK.

Jesus, just how fucking hard of thinking are you?


----------



## toggle (Jan 7, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> NOT ONE PERSON HAS SUGGESTED HE HAS NO RIGHT TO WORK.
> 
> Jesus, just how fucking hard of thinking are you?



too hard of thinking to bother reading anything other than pro evans propaganda i'd say.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 7, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He can't sit on the board of a club; unfit person.
> He can't lead the mascot out on to the pitch; CRB fail
> He can't have any of the youth team train at the ground when he's present; CRB fail
> He can't partake in any of the charity work most clubs get their players to do if it involves children and/or vulnerable people; That sex offenders register that he's on for life can be a drag, ask Gary Glitter.



Clubs do a fair bit with local schools as well, all that next generation of supporters thing.  I remember players turning up at my school to help out with coaching etc.  I doubt Evans will be able to help out much with that, maybe he could give the players who arnt rapists a lift?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 7, 2015)

Teaboy said:


> maybe he could give the players who arnt rapists a lift?



Only as far as the school gates. People on the register for life are not really welcome inside schools.


----------



## bemused (Jan 7, 2015)

toggle said:


> because you don't want to be challenged on having lied about the circumstances of the rape?



he's a convicted rapist, that he raped anyone isn't in dispute - but whatever I'm past caring


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I like the way that it's the ex-filth who's keen to fill the club with ex-cons.



Probably invites them to become members of his Lodge too, the greasy pig cunt.


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2015)

bemused said:


> I assume you have a profession that bars you from working in if you are on the Sex Offenders Register? Maybe I've missed it but what law is in place to stop sex offenders being footballers?
> 
> I have no sympathy for Evens. he's a convicted rapist - so doesn't warrant it. However, I have a lot of sympathy with the premise that once released from prison people should be able to try and reintegrate into society and part of that is working.  So far the only objection I've seen to this guys working as a footballer is it's both highly paid and high profile.
> 
> ...


are you actually this stupid, or are you just on  a pisspoor wind up?

Assuming you are just stupid, then you should go back and reread what I (and various other people) wrote. YOU claimed he had a 'right' to return to being a footballer.  But no such right exists.  Yes, everyone - each and every single person - agrees he has a right to work, but that does not necessarily equate to carrying out the same job as before.  

What you have written essentially amounts to 'let him get on with his life, and us all forget about it.'  Well, guess what?  i think that's a crock of shite. 

Evans is an unapologetic rapist scumbag, and you are apologising for him. I neither know nor care what your reasons for being such an apologist are, but do try thinking before you type in any more twaddle.  Or at the very least make your points make sense, because your above post is barely coherent garbage.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2015)

Wilf said:


> I _think_ I agree with Marina Hyde in this piece (she normally writes well, but this isn't her best) - on the role model bit, but even more so on rape sentencing being the bigger issue.
> http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/jan/06/ched-evans-law-marina-hyde
> edit - certainly don't agree with the _headline_, I do have a problem with the clubs seeking to sign him.  Anyway, i think there's something useful in there about stopping clubs signing him being 'easy victories'.



There was a totally dumbcunt piece by Simon Kelner in tuesday's "i" newspaper, where he rattled on about Evans having done his time. Stupid fuck didn't seem to realise that the rapist shitbag is out on licence, and will be for about another 2 years - in other words he *hasn't* finished paying for his crime. I e-mailed the paper a letter saying much the same in slightly more polite terms, but I doubt they'll print it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Actually, on rereading it (I'm genuinely dopey today - new meds), whilst there's truth in the piece, some of it is quite offensive:
> 
> Yes, it's true, 'clicktivism' has maybe displaced genuine political activity, bu there are a hell of a lot of campaigners putting in some real graft around rape, dv etc.



You can almost guarantee a demo by anti-rape activists at Oldham's ground, and quite possibly at their away matches too.


----------



## andysays (Jan 7, 2015)

bemused said:


> ...I have no sympathy for Evens. he's a convicted rapist - so doesn't warrant it. *However, I have a lot of sympathy with the premise that once released from prison people should be able to try and reintegrate into society and part of that is working*.  So far the only objection I've seen to this guys working as a footballer is it's both highly paid and high profile...



The premise that I and many others are working from is that a repentant criminal should be able to try to reintegrate into society.

Evans is not repentant, by any stretch of the imagination, in fact he stills denies that he has committed the crime for which he was convicted and has decided, for a second time, to attempt to appeal against that conviction.

Clearly he has every legal right to do so, but that decision also has consequences, and one of those consequences is that many people are arguing he shouldn't be allowed to resume his previous prestigious career while it's still going on.

If the most important thing for him was to resume that career, he could have accepted his conviction, shown some remorse and some sign of repentance/rehabilitation. If he'd done that, then I and many others would be far more likely to accept the idea that he should be able to return to his former career.

Unfortunately, he wants to have it both ways, to pursue his appeal, which depends on not accepting his guilt and therefore not being able to even begin a genuine process of rehabilitation, at the same time as claiming the rights of a repentant and rehabilitated criminal to return to his previous life as if everything's OK now.


----------



## andysays (Jan 7, 2015)

bemused said:


> he's a convicted rapist, *that he raped anyone isn't in dispute* - but whatever I'm past caring



But that's the point - he disputes that he raped anyone, he is appealing against his conviction, that's the crucial bit you seem to be ignoring.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I'm always quite astonished by the amount of rape apologists that there are



I'm not, but then I've been exposed to a lot of literature detailing criminal justice system attitudes toward victims of sex offences, and while this shit is institutionalised, it's also reflective of the wider sentiment among our elites - i.e. those with the power to legislate and enforce education and change - and how without education and change, then apologism will always be the order of the day


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2015)

belboid said:


> you kidding? £1500-2000 is being reported



Not including the various bonuses though (goal fees etc, if Oldham pay them) from what I can make out.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2015)

andysays said:


> Depends on your/his definition of top flight, but surely that's never going to happen now?



If Evans has a good run of playing and scoring goals at Oldham, then it's as likely to happen as not, and if Evans gets a proper sniff of a premier team after a season at Oldham, he may even make a completely spurious and meaningless "proper" apology to his victim, in order to facilitate the move.
It's a dirty game, and it's all about money. If there's money to be made, then most of the big clubs already have top-flight PR representation...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2015)

Wilf said:


> To be honest, if he ever makes it onto the field he's an injury waitng to happen. Hasn't played since 2012 (?) and will struggle to get match fit to play much of a role this season - along with the reception he'll get from opposing players.  None of that's really the issue here, but it is a bit of a risk for Oldham in purely footballing terms.



Yep. He's likely to have every fucker trying to do a Nobby Stiles on his knees.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2015)

Teaboy said:


> I honestly think that as a player he'll drift into obscurity, he's been out of the game for a while and despite his extreme arrogance his confidence will have taken a blow.  He'll never fully fit in with a changing room ever again, plus with all that baggage he can't afford to have a bad game let alone a bad run.



That said, there's a minority of people in changing rooms up and down the land who've committed similar sex crimes, so some players may be thinking "there but for the grace of G-d goes me" when they see him.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 7, 2015)

From The Indy again:



> Oldham Athletic’s owner declared tonight that there is an 80 per cent chance of the club signing Ched Evans, declaring: *“You have to stick to your principles.”*



Christ. What 'principles' would those be then?  They really haven't got a clue about how to handle this, have they?


----------



## Espresso (Jan 7, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep. He's likely to have every fucker trying to do a Nobby Stiles on his knees.



I'd doubt that.  
He was in the company of a fellow footballer on the night in question, with a few more of their like minded chums looking through the window. 
I have very grave doubts that they are the only rapists currently playing football. So while some players will certainly want to give him a bit of a doing, a significant number of them will be mainly thanking their lucky stars they're not in his boots and there is no question that some will share the view that he has every right to be back at his work.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 7, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> From The Indy again:
> 
> 
> 
> Christ. What 'principles' would those be then?  They really haven't got a clue about how to handle this, have they?



From the BBC version of that story , the owner comes out with this :




			
				Simon Corney said:
			
		

> Oldham Athletic owner Simon Corney says there is an "80% chance" that the League One club will sign convicted rapist Ched Evans.
> 
> Speaking to the Jewish Chronicle from New York, Corney said the deal could happen "at any time", but that it "wasn't straightforward" *and there were "some legal issues" to overcome first*.
> 
> "We believe he has served his time," Corney said.



Yes, quite a few legal issues. Not least those which directly contradict your last sentence. You dorkbrained pillock ....


----------



## Manter (Jan 7, 2015)

There are many things that baffle me about this, not least the idea that in any other profession he'd be able to resume his career. Apart from the obvious caring professions, and anything involving contact with children, there are actually loads of jobs where a serious conviction like rape would preclude you ever working in that field again. I have to pass a fit and proper test, I am being assessed as code staff and I have in the past been a registered party- all pretty common checks in professional services like law, accountancy; any board level leadership position, any position defined as sensitive in regulated industries like pharma or finance. Any of those checks would be instantly failed with a rape conviction.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 7, 2015)

Manter said:


> There are many things that baffle me about this, not least the idea that in any other profession he'd be able to resume his career. Apart from the obvious caring professions, and anything involving contact with children, there are actually loads of jobs where a serious conviction like rape would preclude you ever working in that field again. I have to pass a fit and proper test, I am being assessed as code staff and I have in the past been a registered party- all pretty common checks in professional services like law, accountancy; any board level leadership position, any position defined as sensitive in regulated industries like pharma or finance. Any of those checks would be instantly failed with a rape conviction.





Even Timpsons who's proud boat is they take on ex-offenders draw the line at sex cases.

He can go and work for his future FIL if he wants, the twat has offered him a job if footie is closed to him after all, not sure I'd want to buy an engagement or wedding ring from a rapist. I'm superstitious like that.


----------



## Manter (Jan 7, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Div.
> 
> Even Timpsons who's proud boat is they take on ex-offenders draw the line at sex cases.
> 
> He can go and work for his future FIL if he wants, the twat has offered him a job if footie is closed to him after all, not sure I'd want to buy an engagement or wedding ring from a rapist. I'm superstitious like that.


Doesn't bode well, does it?


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 7, 2015)

Prestons of Bolton don't have a Facebook page as such but there is the facility to leave a review...hmmm

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Prestons-of-Bolton/429123573861178


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 7, 2015)

andysays said:


> But that's the point - he disputes that he raped anyone, he is appealing against his conviction, that's the crucial bit you seem to be ignoring.


He is not appealing. His appeal was denied. What is happening is that the criminal review commission is investigating his case to determine if it was carried out correctly.


----------



## october_lost (Jan 7, 2015)

Did anyone see channel four interview the other day?


Eric Hall comes across as a bit of a patronising cunt...


----------



## Wilf (Jan 8, 2015)

october_lost said:


> Did anyone see channel four interview the other day?
> 
> 
> Eric Hall comes across as a bit of a patronising cunt...



In many ways, Ch 4 made a very wise choice putting Eric Hall on.


----------



## alfajobrob (Jan 8, 2015)

Wilf said:


> In many ways, Ch 4 made a very wise choice putting Eric Hall on.



I thought the fucker was dead......or hoped.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 8, 2015)

Nando's have pulled out of sponsoring Oldham, they do something about fan prizes, see their Twitter feed for tweet last night.
edit: mirror article: http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/ched-evans-now-nandos-pull-4938028


----------



## Wilf (Jan 8, 2015)

alfajobrob said:


> I thought the fucker was dead......or hoped.


Me too - I was genuinely surprised to see him!


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2015)

Wilf said:


> In many ways, Ch 4 made a very wise choice putting Eric Hall on.


"Monster monster"


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 8, 2015)

Wilf said:


> In many ways, Ch 4 made a very wise choice putting Eric Hall on.




What a fucking cock that Hall is, his first words, "I think you'd better be very careful what you say, my darling, he is appealing..."

Yes, wise choice C4!


----------



## JTG (Jan 8, 2015)

I love how the 'appeal', which isn't an appeal anyway, is evidence of his innocence to some.


----------



## bluescreen (Jan 8, 2015)

He is innocent because she could stay upright while walking.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 8, 2015)

Shamelessly robbed from the new jokes thread:

BREAKING SPORTS NEWS: Oldham Athletic have said 'NO' to Ched Evans.

But he is taking that as a 'YES'.


----------



## Utopia (Jan 8, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Shamelessly robbed from the new jokes thread:
> 
> BREAKING SPORTS NEWS: Oldham Athletic have said 'NO' to Ched Evans.
> 
> But he is taking that as a 'YES'.


 
She didn't actually say No though did she?, in fact, according to the transcript from the court case she asked him to perform oral sex on her before he had sex with her.  The issue is that she was too intoxicated to consent, hence its rape.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 8, 2015)

Utopia said:


> She didn't actually say No though did she?, in fact, according to the transcript from the court case she asked him to perform oral sex on her before he had sex with her.  The issue is that she was too intoxicated to consent, hence its rape.


Oral sex isn't PIV sex. HTH


----------



## trashpony (Jan 8, 2015)

Sky is reporting that Oldham signing is off

http://news.sky.com/story/1404284/ched-evans-oldham-signing-is-off


----------



## killer b (Jan 8, 2015)

Utopia said:


> She didn't actually say No though did she?, in fact, according to the transcript from the court case she asked him to perform oral sex on her before he had sex with her.  The issue is that she was too intoxicated to consent, hence its rape.


vermin.


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2015)

trashpony said:


> Sky is reporting that Oldham signing is off
> 
> http://news.sky.com/story/1404284/ched-evans-oldham-signing-is-off



Good.

Though the pessimist in me says it's only a matter of time.  There'll be  club, somewhere, at some level, to which the financial value of his goals will outweigh the financial cost of losing fans and sponsors.  And once he's back in, he'll keep his head down and gradually climb up through the leagues, probably making a very good living.


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2015)

Utopia said:


> She didn't actually say No though did she?, in fact, according to the transcript from the court case she asked him to perform oral sex on her before he had sex with her.  The issue is that she was too intoxicated to consent, hence its rape.



Putting aside the issue that consenting to oral sex is not the same as consenting to vaginal sex, your position is that because the (subsequently) convicted rapist said it in court, it's true?  Really?


----------



## toggle (Jan 8, 2015)

Utopia said:


> She didn't actually say No though did she?, in fact, according to the transcript from the court case she asked him to perform oral sex on her before he had sex with her.  The issue is that she was too intoxicated to consent, hence its rape.



According to the transcript?

the transcript is a record of the evidence given by people. Whose evidence are you quoting here while trying to give it a neutral authority of being from the transcript?

oh, that's right, you're quoting evans. the bloke the jury didn't believe.


----------



## toggle (Jan 8, 2015)

Athos said:


> Good.
> 
> Though the pessimist in me says it's only a matter of time.  There'll be  club, somewhere, at some level, to which the financial value of his goals will outweigh the financial cost of losing fans and sponsors.  And once he's back in, he'll keep his head down and gradually climb up through the leagues, probably making a very good living.



the more that Uk clubs see this shit happening, the less likely it is that he will get a deal anywhere. After this, there's no way that any club can play the faux xupprise/outrage that anyone is complaining. I don't think he will get anywhere now until he can go overseas to some where that hasn't seen massive reporting of this case.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 8, 2015)

Ffs he was found guilty failed at his appeal it was rape


----------



## yardbird (Jan 8, 2015)

BBC just now
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30727729


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2015)

yardbird said:


> BBC just now
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30727729


 
Capitalism sort-of wins!


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 8, 2015)

Utopia said:


> She didn't actually say No though did she?, in fact, according to the transcript from the court case she asked him to perform oral sex on her before he had sex with her.  The issue is that she was too intoxicated to consent, hence its rape.




Twas a joke, hence: Shamelessly robbed from the new jokes thread

Yet you somehow wish to use that as a platform to show the world you're a cunt. Well done.


----------



## The Octagon (Jan 8, 2015)

Glad the deal is off, but sincerely hope this bit:



> Oldham Athletic have decided against signing convicted rapist Ched Evans following threats to the club's "staff and their families".



is either hyperbole or bollocks.


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2015)

toggle said:


> the more that Uk clubs see this shit happening, the less likely it is that he will get a deal anywhere. After this, there's no way that any club can play the faux xupprise/outrage that anyone is complaining. I don't think he will get anywhere now until he can go overseas to some where that hasn't seen massive reporting of this case.



I wish that were true, but, knowing football like I do, I'd not be surprised if some League Two, or even Conference side picked him up cheap, took a hit on losing a few sponsors, gambling that his goals could secure promotion and a big pay-day.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 8, 2015)

Bid dropped.

Ha ha!


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Bid dropped.
> 
> Ha ha!


 
You have to stick to your principles.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 8, 2015)

I bet he ends up at Leeds


----------



## toggle (Jan 8, 2015)

Athos said:


> I wish that were true, but, knowing football like I do, I'd not be surprised if some League Two, or even Conference side picked him up cheap, took a hit on losing a few sponsors, gambling that his goals could secure promotion and a big pay-day.



there's probably quite a few considering it atm. you can probably work out which ones.  which clubs both needs the money that desperately and are most likely to treat fan complaints with utter contempt?


----------



## andysays (Jan 8, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> He is not appealing. His appeal was denied. What is happening is that the criminal review commission is investigating his case to determine if it was carried out correctly.



I thought he had attempted to appeal once, had that denied and was now attempting to appeal again, but I'm happy to concede that I might have got the details of that wrong.

The significant point though is that he still claims he is innocent and is still pursuing legal measures to have himself declared innocent, so he can in no way be considered to have accepted, repented of and begun to be rehabilited for his crime - he doesn't even agree that what he did _was_ a crime, and that he needs to repent/be rehabilitated.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 8, 2015)

His appeal has been denied twice. He is now asking the CRC to review the case but it's very, very unlikely that will result in overturning his conviction


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2015)

october_lost said:


> Did anyone see channel four interview the other day?
> 
> 
> Eric Hall comes across as a bit of a patronising cunt...




He was interviewed on R4's "The World at One" or "Today" (can't remember which, soz!) on Tuesday, and came out with much the same shit. Still, it's Eric Hall. The twat has never made any bones about how the only thing that motivates him is making money. One of the things (to paraphrase) that he came out with on the radio was that if he was Evans' agent, then he (Hall) would be losing money, the same as Evans, and people stopping Evans earning a living would also be stopping him earning a living.  Cunt deluxe.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> What a fucking cock that Hall is, his first words, "I think you'd better be very careful what you say, my darling, he is appealing..."
> 
> Yes, wise choice C4!



At least Eric hasn't played the *Plastic Jew card.
Yet.

*When Eric gets into an argument, and thinks he can't win, he often mentions he's Jewish and then insinuates that his interlocutor is anti-Semitic. He really is high-class, is Eric.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 8, 2015)

From the assorted commentary by fuckwits on the Internet you'd be mistaken for thinking that rape convictions were something that could somehow be secured easily.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 8, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> From the assorted commentary by fuckwits on the Internet you'd be mistaken for thinking that rape convictions were something that could somehow be secured easily.



It's all evil women setting out to wreck the lives of good old boys.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 8, 2015)

The Octagon said:


> Glad the deal is off, but sincerely hope this bit:
> 
> 
> 
> is either hyperbole or bollocks.



Yeah, it's a bit of face-saving bullshit.


----------



## Betsy (Jan 8, 2015)

The daughter of one of the board members had been threatened with rape if they signed him....that bit of news has left me flabbergasted.


----------



## JTG (Jan 8, 2015)

Betsy said:


> The daughter of one of the board members had been threatened with rape if they signed him....that bit of news has left me flabbergasted.


link please


----------



## Betsy (Jan 8, 2015)

JTG said:


> link please


I don't have a link ..I have just heard it on the radio


----------



## JTG (Jan 8, 2015)

Betsy said:


> I don't have a link ..I have just heard it on the radio


Which station? Who said it?


----------



## Betsy (Jan 8, 2015)

JTG said:


> Which station? Who said it?


I am not in court.


----------



## JTG (Jan 8, 2015)

Betsy said:


> I am not in court.


No, you're listening to the radio and reporting what it said to us. I'd like some more information please


----------



## Betsy (Jan 8, 2015)

JTG said:


> No, you're listening to the radio and reporting what it said to us. I'd like some more information please


I heard a sports journalist say it on 5 Live about 10 minutes ago.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 8, 2015)

Betsy said:


> The daughter of one of the board members had been threatened with rape if they signed him....that bit of news has left me flabbergasted.



I hope I'm right in calling chinny-reckon on that. 

Clearly a threat of rape is a serious criminal offence which would draw down some prison time, so if it's not bullshit I'm sure the police are already on to it...


----------



## JTG (Jan 8, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I hope I'm right in calling chinny-reckon on that.
> 
> Clearly a threat of rape is a serious criminal offence which would draw down some prison time, so if it's not bullshit I'm sure the police are already on to it...


I would expect to hear of a GMP investigation soon, yes


----------



## Betsy (Jan 8, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I hope I'm right in calling chinny-reckon on that.
> 
> Clearly a threat of rape is a serious criminal offence which would draw down some prison time, so if it's not bullshit I'm sure the police are already on to it...


I think it was Peter Fahey (Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police) who was being interviewed (on the same station) about terrorism was asked about the threats to family members of Oldham FC and he said of course it would be looked into.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 8, 2015)

Betsy said:


> I think it was Peter Fahey (Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police) who was being interviewed (on the same station) about terrorism was asked about the threats to family members of Oldham FC and he said of course it would be looked into.




We'll see then. If true I genuinely hope that whoever did it gets sent down, still got a feeling it will turn out to be bollocks though. Maybe I'm just getting cynical.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 8, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> At least Eric hasn't played the *Plastic Jew card.
> Yet.
> 
> *When Eric gets into an argument, and thinks he can't win, he often mentions he's Jewish and then insinuates that his interlocutor is anti-Semitic. He really is high-class, is Eric.


Maybe he's a pound shop Alan Dershowitz.


----------



## JTG (Jan 8, 2015)




----------



## Betsy (Jan 8, 2015)

JTG said:


>


That tweet was recorded at 12-20 ...it was  after that that Peter Fahey was asked about the threats.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 8, 2015)

Betsy said:


> I heard a sports journalist say it on 5 Live about 10 minutes ago.


 It was mentioned in the bbc report on the last page.  I hope it's bullshit, though it's not uncommon for some twitter moron to throw in such a threat as part of a story like this. _If_ such a threat was made I hope they get caught.


----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2015)

Evans issues 'apology':

Convicted rapist *Ched Evans* has issued an apology via the Professional Footballers' Association "for the effects that night in Rhyl has had on many people, not least the woman concerned" but maintains his innocence in relation to his conviction for rape.

I suppose if he'd really tried it could have been even more half arsed


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 8, 2015)

Having just seen another potential job fall through Evans has released a statement.  Basically he's very sorry about a lot of things, but he's still not guilty.  So that's that as far as I'm concerned - time to move on.


----------



## Betsy (Jan 8, 2015)

JTG said:


> link please


_"Oldham Athletic have decided against signing convicted rapist Ched Evans following threats to the club's "staff and their families".
"A club director told BBC sports editor Dan Roan that a staff member was informed a named relative would be raped if the deal went ahead._"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30727729


----------



## Wilf (Jan 8, 2015)

belboid said:


> Evans issues 'apology':
> 
> Convicted rapist *Ched Evans* has issued an apology via the Professional Footballers' Association "for the effects that night in Rhyl has had on many people, not least the woman concerned" but maintains his innocence in relation to his conviction for rape.
> 
> I suppose if he'd really tried it could have been even more half arsed


 Somewhere, some idiot of a club chairman in freefall towards relegation will be thinking "hmmm... is that enough of a apology to stop us losing sponsors if we sign him?".


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2015)

toggle said:


> there's probably quite a few considering it atm. you can probably work out which ones.  which clubs both needs the money that desperately and are most likely to treat fan complaints with utter contempt?



Maybe a club like Hartlepool.  They're facing the financial disaster that would follow relegation from the league (they're currently bottom), unlikely to lose sponsors if they signed him (since they're inked to the club's owners), and is a club owned by the sort of entity not famed for its ethics - an oil company (with no connection to football or the town, and which has chosen to domicile the club in the Virgin Islands for tax purposes).  He could do a good job at that level, and might just get them out of the woods.  Plus he'd likely do it cheap, just to get his foot back in the door.


----------



## bluescreen (Jan 8, 2015)

The thing that gets me is that he's hardly the first footballer to be accused of rape. And of course those acquitted are *obviously* innocent , but isn't there a general culture of entitlement here that needs addressing?


----------



## Jay Park (Jan 8, 2015)

Betsy said:


> _"Oldham Athletic have decided against signing convicted rapist Ched Evans following threats to the club's "staff and their families".
> "A club director told BBC sports editor Dan Roan that a staff member was informed a named relative would be raped if the deal went ahead._"
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30727729



if you sign that rapist, you'll be visited by our rapist?


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> The thing that gets me is that he's hardly the first footballer to be accused of rape. And of course those acquitted are *obviously* innocent , but isn't there a general culture of entitlement here that needs addressing?


It's hard enough to keep convicted rapist out of the game, never mind those who were acquitted!


----------



## Betsy (Jan 8, 2015)

Jay Park said:


> if you sign that rapist, you'll be visited by our rapist?


Unbelievable isn't it!


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 8, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> The thing that gets me is that he's hardly the first footballer to be accused of rape. And of course those acquitted are *obviously* innocent , but isn't there a general culture of entitlement here that needs addressing?



Yes there is, which is why had Evans from the off acknowledged what he'd done he could have made a huge difference to this culture of entitlement and many people, me included, would not have such an issue with him. But he's chosen to go down a different path, the same one that's been trodden for years; the victim is partly to blame, feminists are out to wreck his carer, lads will be lads etc. So fuck him.


----------



## shygirl (Jan 8, 2015)

If true, the threat is as despicable as those levelled against Evans' victim, but I do wonder if Sir Peter Fahey made similar statements about her plight.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 8, 2015)

Betsy said:


> Unbelievable isn't it!




Has there been any word on how this threat was made? twitter, letter, phone call, tied to a brick lobbed through a window?


----------



## Betsy (Jan 8, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Has there been any word on how this threat was made? twitter, letter, phone call, tied to a brick lobbed through a window?


I don't know but it was said that the person who sent it said they knew where the woman, they said they would rape, lived...


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2015)

Betsy said:


> Unbelievable isn't it!



Literally, I suspect.


----------



## bluescreen (Jan 8, 2015)

Athos said:


> Literally, I suspect.


Well, I hope it's untrue. Heaven knows, nothing in this sorry saga could for one moment lend it credence.


----------



## baffled (Jan 8, 2015)

David Conn of the guardian has tweeted that police contacted Oldham who have said no threats made but low level abuse received on twitter.


----------



## Betsy (Jan 8, 2015)

baffled said:


> David Conn of the guardian has tweeted that police contacted Oldham who have said no threats made but low level abuse received on twitter.


From the BBC website...._"A club director told BBC sports editor Dan Roan that a staff member was informed a named relative would be raped if the deal went ahead._"


----------



## andysays (Jan 8, 2015)

Athos said:


> Literally, I suspect.



I wouldn't say it was "literally unbelievable", but I also wouldn't describe the idea that the "club director who told BBC sports editor Dan Roan that a staff member was informed a named relative would be raped if the deal went ahead" was making the whole thing up or at the very least totally exaggerating what did happen so that Oldham could wriggle out of the mess they've got themselves in as "totally unbelievable" either.


----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2015)

Athos said:


> Maybe a club like Hartlepool.  They're facing the financial disaster that would follow relegation from the league (they're currently bottom), unlikely to lose sponsors if they signed him (since they're inked to the club's owners), and is a club owned by the sort of entity not famed for its ethics - an oil company (with no connection to football or the town, and which has chosen to domicile the club in the Virgin Islands for tax purposes).  He could do a good job at that level, and might just get them out of the woods.  Plus he'd likely do it cheap, just to get his foot back in the door.


Hartlepool have been fairly clear in their refusal to sign him, they don't look a likely option, imo. Mansfield would be a likely choice, similarly in the crap, northern and close to where he's living now.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 8, 2015)

baffled said:


> David Conn of the guardian has tweeted that police contacted Oldham who have said no threats made but low level abuse received on twitter.




If such a tweet (or several) were made then yes, even that's a disgrace and yes, they should be investigated. (Betsy )

But forgive me for being cynical like Bahnhof Strasse , and a bit suspicious still at this point -- the version reported on BBC Sport (and Sky) is suggestive of that much worse -- direct and personal rape threats. Let's see if GMP end up being able to investigate those  -- and yes, I hope they catch whoever's responsible quickly.
BUT ... Was it in Oldham's interests (as they saw them!) to erm ....... _emphasise_ any level of threat, for media spin purposes? Only asking the question  ...


----------



## Wilf (Jan 8, 2015)

belboid said:


> Hartlepool have been fairly clear in their refusal to sign him, they don't look a likely option, imo. Mansfield would be a likely choice, similarly in the crap, northern and close to where he's living now.


Hmm, wonder what a suitable Travel to Work Zone for Rapists is?


----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2015)

Corney apparently has quit as Chairman

http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/89746/corney-quits-as-ched-deal-off


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2015)

belboid said:


> Hartlepool have been fairly clear in their refusal to sign him, they don't look a likely option, imo. Mansfield would be a likely choice, similarly in the crap, northern and close to where he's living now.



The manager, Moore, was all for it.  The club said it 'had no plans'.  But that was before his 'apology'.  Nothing would surprise me in capital-perverted modern football.


----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2015)

Athos said:


> The manager, Moore, was all for it.  The club said it 'had no plans'.  But that was before his 'apology'.  Nothing would surprise me in capital-perverted modern football.


they've been clearer than that now - "Hartlepool United do not intend signing Ched Evans and, for the avoidance of doubt, will not be doing so, irrespective of his obvious ability as a football player."

And Moore, as I well know as a Tranmere fan, is a complete dickhead


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2015)

belboid said:


> they've been clearer than that now - "Hartlepool United do not intend signing Ched Evans and, for the avoidance of doubt, will not be doing so, irrespective of his obvious ability as a football player."
> 
> And Moore, as I well know as a Tranmere fan, is a complete dickhead



Let's hope they, and all clubs, stand firm.  Would be pleased to be proved wrong on this one.


----------



## Betsy (Jan 8, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> If such a tweet (or several) were made then yes, even that's a disgrace and yes, they should be investigated. (Betsy )
> 
> But forgive me for being cynical like Bahnhof Strasse , and a bit suspicious still at this point -- the version reported on BBC Sport (and Sky) is suggestive of that much worse -- direct and personal rape threats. Let's see if GMP end up being able to investigate those  -- and yes, I hope they catch whoever's responsible quickly.
> BUT ... *Was it in Oldham's interests (as they saw them!) to erm ....... emphasise any level of threat, *for media spin purposes? Only asking the question  ...


It never entered my mind to doubt the veracity of what the Oldham person said to the BBC sport's journalist.


----------



## mod (Jan 8, 2015)

Athos said:


> I wish that were true, but, knowing football like I do, I'd not be surprised if some League Two, or even Conference side picked him up cheap, took a hit on losing a few sponsors, gambling that his goals could secure promotion and a big pay-day.



He cant leave the UK for another 2 years until his sentence is complete.


----------



## Espresso (Jan 8, 2015)

Athos said:


> I wish that were true, but, knowing football like I do, I'd not be surprised if some League Two, or even Conference side picked him up cheap, took a hit on losing a few sponsors, gambling that his goals could secure promotion and a big pay-day.



Karl Oyston, the chairman of Blackpool fits that bill to a tee.

After one glorious season recently in the top flight led by the lovely loony Ian Holloway, my poor little home town team is on an ever downward spiral. Karl Oyston is the chairman and he universally hated by all the fans of the club. In return, he treats them with the utmost contempt and gets into all manner of public spats on social media with them. He is being investigated by the FA for sending abusive texts to a fan. And he's suing a fan at the moment.

To put the sodding tin lid on it, his father is Owen Oyston. Oyston senior is the owner of Blackpool FC and is a convicted rapist himself.

Yup, I bet Oyston zoomed off down the motorway to sign Evans the second he heard the Oldham gig was off.


----------



## bluescreen (Jan 8, 2015)

I read the name Oyston and started to  before I read the rest of your post.


----------



## hash tag (Jan 8, 2015)

Looking slightly to one side for a mo, foitball has had bad press, for a variety if reasons over the years and a club signing a rapist will certainly not help that image.
A club i have not seen mentioned, who no one likes already, who might sign him; millwall. No one would argue with their fans and would anyone dare protest at one of their matches?
Btw, for apology, please read, im getting desperate.


----------



## DRINK? (Jan 8, 2015)

The spectator doesn't mess about 

http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnis...icrous-and-petty-campaign-against-ched-evans/


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2015)

To be honest I doubt Millwall will dare to sign him.


----------



## JTG (Jan 8, 2015)

Brilliant, someone shoe-horns in a chance to demonise Millwall


----------



## Wilf (Jan 8, 2015)

DRINK? said:


> The spectator doesn't mess about
> 
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnis...icrous-and-petty-campaign-against-ched-evans/


You forgot to mention the author of the piece - Rod Liddle.   He in turn manages to get in a reference not simply to feminazis, but to the feller himself!

I wonder what the etiquette is when you are writing a permanently enraged, PC gone mad piece - is it okay to mention Hitler in the 2nd sentence or should you defer gratification?


----------



## belboid (Jan 8, 2015)

DRINK? said:


> The spectator doesn't mess about
> 
> http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnis...icrous-and-petty-campaign-against-ched-evans/


I'm astounded Declan Wotsisface or some other ex-RCP moron hasn't chimed in yet, it can only be a matter of time


----------



## Athos (Jan 8, 2015)

mod said:


> He cant leave the UK for another 2 years until his sentence is complete.



What's that got to do with him playing in League 2 or the conference?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 8, 2015)

yardbird said:


> BBC just now
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30727729





> A club director told BBC sports editor Dan Roan that a staff member was informed a named relative would be raped if the deal went ahead.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 8, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I hope I'm right in calling chinny-reckon on that.
> 
> Clearly a threat of rape is a serious criminal offence which would draw down some prison time, so if it's not bullshit I'm sure the police are already on to it...



It was in the link above.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2015)

Jesus christ taylor:



> The head of the Professional Footballers' Association has sparked fury by apparently comparing the situation of convicted rapist footballer Ched Evans with that of the Hillsborough tragedy.





> So no body is saying that it’s easy for him or anybody else.
> 
> “It’s not looking for him at the moment and he will need support like everybody else in this unfortunate situation needs support.
> 
> “He would not be the first person or persons to have been found guilty and maintained their innocence and then been proved right. If we are talking about things in football we know what happened, what was alleged to have happened at Hillsborough and it’s now unravelling and we are finding it was very different to how it was portrayed at the time. Indeed by the police at the time.”


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 8, 2015)

Gordon is a moron. What a fucking idiot.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 8, 2015)

goldenecitrone said:


> Gordon is a moron. What a fucking idiot.




*If* I wasn't 100% sure before that Gordon Taylor is (another) dork-brained pillock, I am *110%* sure now.

Would like to hope that a fair few PFA members/players are embarrassed by this man right now.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 8, 2015)

The Octagon said:


> Glad the deal is off, but sincerely hope this bit:
> 
> 
> 
> is either hyperbole or bollocks.


Might have been threats of rape being made against relatives of Oldham's employees if they went ahead with the signing, as in ' sign Evans and your daughter will be raped.'

Which leaves me speechless tbh and I sincerely hope it is bollocks.

Interestingly I had a discussion with some guys at work who didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with him trying to get back into football saying that to not let him was just revenge.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 8, 2015)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> If such a tweet (or several) were made then yes, even that's a disgrace and yes, they should be investigated. (Betsy )
> 
> But forgive me for being cynical like Bahnhof Strasse , and a bit suspicious still at this point -- the version reported on BBC Sport (and Sky) is suggestive of that much worse -- direct and personal rape threats. Let's see if GMP end up being able to investigate those -- and yes, I hope they catch whoever's responsible quickly.
> BUT ... *Was it in Oldham's interests (as they saw them!) to erm ....... emphasise any level of threat, *for media spin purposes? Only asking the question  ...






Betsy said:


> It never entered my mind to doubt the veracity of what the Oldham person said to the BBC sport's journalist.



Not at all comfortable myself, Betsy , at questioning the credibility of any rape threat accusation at any level. 

But I would say wait and see on this particular one -- media spin should always be questioned too.


----------



## weepiper (Jan 8, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> Interestingly I had a discussion with some guys at work who didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with him trying to get back into football saying that to not let him was just revenge.


I have had very refreshing separate conversations with two guys at work about it where they both agreed with me, one a football fan one not, one who's served time himself (although not for a sexual offence) and knows what it's like trying to get a job afterwards, neither could understand why this should be any kind of special case and both saying it was ridiculous to suggest he should just be able to walk back into a similar role before his licence is even up.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 8, 2015)

weepiper said:


> I have had very refreshing separate conversations with two guys at work about it where they both agreed with me, one a football fan one not, one who's served time himself (although not for a sexual offence) and knows what it's like trying to get a job afterwards, neither could understand why this should be any kind of special case and both saying it was ridiculous to suggest he should just be able to walk back into a similar role before his licence is even up.


I'll admit I was slightly taken aback by one of them as we had half the conversation yesterday and he seemed to be of a similar opinion to me that he should not play.

Argument was along the lines of 'well he's been to prison, why should there be any other consequences?'


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 8, 2015)

fucking hell - gordan taylor should resign for that shit.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jan 8, 2015)

Gordon Taylor is a complete fuckwit


----------



## Wilf (Jan 9, 2015)

They probably won't demean themselves by getting involved with him, but the Hillsborough families could hasten the daft bastard's retirement if they went for him after this.  FFS, imagine comparing what they have suffered to a rapist wanting to get back into football.   Wish he'd just fuck off and spend more time with his Murdoch money.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 9, 2015)

Betsy said:


> The daughter of one of the board members had been threatened with rape if they signed him....that bit of news has left me flabbergasted.



Maybe someone said 'how would you like it if it happened to your daughter?' and they took it as a threat rather than a request for a bit of reflection.  It wouldn't be hard to read things that way if you were on the defensive.

There's been definite threats to business interests of owners, in terms of boycotts and protests, but that's no concern for the police.

I also expect there's a few trolls and attention seekers who have little interest in the wrongs of the case but just want to stir up a bit of shit or get attention, I can totally believe they've had childish threats and all sorts, no reflection on those who are campaigning sincerely.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2015)

Gordon Taylor plumbs new depths.


----------



## Athos (Jan 9, 2015)

weepiper said:


> I have had very refreshing separate conversations with two guys at work about it where they both agreed with me, one a football fan one not, one who's served time himself (although not for a sexual offence) and knows what it's like trying to get a job afterwards, neither could understand why this should be any kind of special case and both saying it was ridiculous to suggest he should just be able to walk back into a similar role before his licence is even up.



I went to football last night, and I was pleasantly surprised that the majority of the opinions I heard (admittedly, just in the block where I stand) were "fuck him, he's got no right to be a footballer" and "wouldn't want him at my club" (and even a couple of "shoulda hanged him").  Even the few people who said he should be allowed back based their argument on the idea of rehabilitation etc., rather than minimising or justifying what he'd done, or vilifying his victim.

We've always been a progressive bunch at Luton Town.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 9, 2015)

I had a convo with a friend of a friend last night who is a football fan- he was of the opinion that he shouldn't be allowed to play till license is served and as some recompense should start a coaching scheme for skilled young ex cons who show footballing skills. But given that ched still thinks he didn't commit rape by penetrating a passed out woman, that is never going to happen


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 9, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> It was in the link above.



Read the link carefully, then look out for any follow-up story, such as http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jan/08/ched-evans-signing-called-off-oldham


> Joy claimed threats had been made against directors, fans and sponsors, although Greater Manchester Police said no official complaints had been received.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 9, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Read the link carefully, then look out for any follow-up story, such as http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jan/08/ched-evans-signing-called-off-oldham



Well it may be bullshit, but it looked like you were calling bullshit on the _poster_ but it had been reported as such. Anyway, I was playing catch up, so doing a VP/Canuck by picking up on stuff already picked up on.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 9, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Well it may be bullshit, but it looked like you were calling bullshit on the _poster_ but it had been reported as such. Anyway, I was playing catch up, so doing a VP/Canuck by picking up on stuff already picked up on.



Fair enough, wasn't calling bullshit on the poster, just saying that Oldham's story whiffed a bit.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 9, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> *If* I wasn't 100% sure before that Gordon Taylor is (another) dork-brained pillock, I am *110%* sure now.



I knew it anyway as I posted a few pages back but even so this surprised me at just how low he can go, I reckon even Evans must have cringed at that one.  I know he feels it's his job to defend his members come what may but fucking hell, who would want to be represented by this simpering idiot?  How many more fuck-ups does he make before they get rid and get someone at least remotly competant and professional.


----------



## JTG (Jan 9, 2015)

I've flounced from a Rovers forum over the topic, some people's attitudes are making me feel ill

Interestingly, the few times a female poster has piped up on the topic, it's been with a flat 'I wouldn't watch Rovers play if we signed him'


----------



## belboid (Jan 9, 2015)

Teaboy said:


> I knew it anyway as I posted a few pages back but even so this surprised me at just how low he can go, I reckon even Evans must have cringed at that one.  I know he feels it's his job to defend his members come what may but fucking hell, who would want to be represented by this simpering idiot?  How many more fuck-ups does he make before they get rid and get someone at least remotly competant and professional.


he's been Chief Exec since 1981!  He's about as likely to resign as Blatter.


----------



## heinous seamus (Jan 9, 2015)

The finest legal mind of his generation, Steve Bruce, has looked closely at the case and decided Ched has a case for appeal 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30742947


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 9, 2015)

belboid said:


> he's been Chief Exec since 1981!  He's about as likely to resign as Blatter.



Sure, plus as we found out recently he's broke having gambled all his money away.  I'm just amazed that none of the members want to be represented by someone worthwhile.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 9, 2015)

heinous seamus said:


> The finest legal mind of his generation, Steve Bruce, has looked closely at the case and decided Ched has a case for appeal
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30742947



I saw Steve Bruce destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging himself through the negro streets at dawn.


----------



## articul8 (Jan 9, 2015)

heinous seamus said:


> The finest legal mind of his generation, Steve Bruce, has looked closely at the case and decided Ched has a case for appeal
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30742947


Why do we bother with a Criminal Cases Review Commission when we could just get Brucie to have a gander through the files?


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 9, 2015)

heinous seamus said:


> The finest legal mind of his generation, Steve Bruce, has looked closely at the case and decided Ched has a case for appeal
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30742947



Steve Bruce says that?

Maybe I have got this all wrong after all.


----------



## Yelkcub (Jan 9, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Why do we bother with a Criminal Cases Review Commission when we could just get Brucie to have a gander through the files?



It was Brucie who got the Birmingham 6 out. 'Maybe they didn't do it' I think he said


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 9, 2015)

articul8 said:


> Why do we bother with a Criminal Cases Review Commission when we could just get Brucie to have a gander through the files?



Files?  A quick wiki should do, no?  Due process and all that.


----------



## JTG (Jan 9, 2015)

I'm fed up of all these idiots saying 'ah but when you look at the details...'

I have looked at the details you fuckwits, I can tell you more about the evidence than you can. Shut up


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 9, 2015)

Wasnt it Steve Bruce (whilst at Birmingham) who gave Pennant a job after he came out of prison after his umpteenth drink driving conviction?  He's a one man review and rehabilitation board.


----------



## JTG (Jan 9, 2015)

He'll end up at Forest Green Rovers anyway. They all do


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2015)

mod said:


> He cant leave the UK for another 2 years until his sentence is complete.



In fact he can't do much until he's off of licence, because the slightest criminal transgression means he goes back to chokey.
If only we had jay-walking laws in the UK!


----------



## belboid (Jan 9, 2015)

JTG said:


> I'm fed up of all these idiots saying 'ah but when you look at the details...'
> 
> I have looked at the details you fuckwits, I can tell you more about the evidence than you can. Shut up


it is, well, not really funny.  But who got to look at (and listen to) more of the details than anyone on the internet, or down the pub?  The jury.  The ones who unanimously found Evans guilty. Funny that.


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 9, 2015)

heinous seamus said:


> The finest legal mind of his generation, Steve Bruce, has looked closely at the case and decided Ched has a case for appeal
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30742947



Oh FFS.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2015)

belboid said:


> Evans issues 'apology':
> 
> Convicted rapist *Ched Evans* has issued an apology via the Professional Footballers' Association "for the effects that night in Rhyl has had on many people, not least the woman concerned" but maintains his innocence in relation to his conviction for rape.
> 
> I suppose if he'd really tried it could have been even more half arsed



Pretty much as I predicted, when I said he'd make a spurious and insincere apology if he thought it'd give him a sniff of a contract. What a two-bob cunt he is.


----------



## belboid (Jan 9, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Pretty much as I predicted, when I said he'd make a spurious and insincere apology if he thought it'd give him a sniff of a contract. What a two-bob cunt he is.


and when he follows it up with a second statement condemning 'mob justice' and 'radicals' two bob seems to be a very generous assessment.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2015)

hash tag said:


> Looking slightly to one side for a mo, foitball has had bad press, for a variety if reasons over the years and a club signing a rapist will certainly not help that image.
> A club i have not seen mentioned, who no one likes already, who might sign him; millwall. No one would argue with their fans and would anyone dare protest at one of their matches?
> Btw, for apology, please read, im getting desperate.



Millwall's "nobody likes us and we don't care" doesn't mean the fans would tolerate them signing a rapist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2015)

belboid said:


> and when he follows it up with a second statement condemning 'mob justice' and 'radicals' two bob seems to be a very generous assessment.



Fuckwad should be grateful he hasn't been subjected to true "mob justice", and left dangling from the fucking goalposts!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> Might have been threats of rape being made against relatives of Oldham's employees if they went ahead with the signing, as in ' sign Evans and your daughter will be raped.'
> 
> Which leaves me speechless tbh and I sincerely hope it is bollocks.
> 
> Interestingly I had a discussion with some guys at work who didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with him trying to get back into football saying that to not let him was just revenge.



To which I'd say "it's not revenge, it's poetic justice for him continuing to pretend he's not a rapist".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Jesus christ taylor:



The old '80s terrace chant "Gordon Taylor, he fucks dogs" (to the tune of "London Bridge is Falling Down") needs to be revived.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> fucking hell - gordan taylor should resign for that shit.



Shit-eating dog-fucker should be sacked, not allowed to resign.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Well it may be bullshit, but it looked like you were calling bullshit on the _poster_ but it had been reported as such. Anyway, I was playing catch up, so doing a VP/Canuck by picking up on stuff already picked up on.


----------



## ShakespearO (Jan 9, 2015)

JTG said:


> I'm fed up of all these idiots saying 'ah but when you look at the details...'
> 
> I have looked at the details you fuckwits, I can tell you more about the evidence than you can. Shut up


Please can you post a link or direct us to these details you have looked at. The only place I found any details is on the Ched Evans site which, by its nature, is not likely to be impartial or include facts unhelpful to his position.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 9, 2015)

heinous seamus said:


> The finest legal mind of his generation, Steve Bruce, has looked closely at the case and decided Ched has a case for appeal
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30742947


 Looks like he headed one too many long balls out of defence.


----------



## belboid (Jan 9, 2015)

ShakespearO said:


> Please can you post a link or direct us to these details you have looked at. The only place I found any details is on the Ched Evans site which, by its nature, is not likely to be impartial or include facts unhelpful to his position.


https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans - for one.  There's a link to the full appeal transcript there too


----------



## likesfish (Jan 9, 2015)

The Taylor continues to prove intelligence is not needed for a career in football.

If twos up on some drunken woman you never met before and then legging it with the police starting the investigation as a naked womman in a strange bed with no memory of what happened ism dodgy what the hell is?


----------



## ShakespearO (Jan 9, 2015)

belboid said:


> https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans - for one.  There's a link to the full appeal transcript there too


Thanks. It's not very detailed though. 
What I would like to see - subject to appropriate anonymisation obviously - would be the defendants' statements to the cops and their testimony (assuming they gave any) in court.  If anyone has those it would be great, since they are key to understanding how they explained their actions on the night.


----------



## belboid (Jan 9, 2015)

Why would you need to anonymise the - oft-named - defendant' statements?

Their explanations are there in the link given


----------



## Betsy (Jan 9, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Fair enough, *wasn't calling bullshit on the poste*r, just saying that Oldham's story whiffed a bit.


Thank you for that  - I wasn't quite sure.


----------



## ShakespearO (Jan 9, 2015)

belboid said:


> Why would you need to anonymise the - oft-named - defendant' statements?
> 
> Their explanations are there in the link given


Because I imagine that the cops / lawyers would have used the woman's name in the questions making up the transcripts.


----------



## belboid (Jan 9, 2015)

ShakespearO said:


> Because I imagine that the cops / lawyers would have used the woman's name in the questions making up the transcripts.


One of the reasons why those things are never released.  There is plenty of info out there, more than  enough for most rational people. Tho probably not for those who are desperately trying to find ways to get Evans off the hook.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 9, 2015)

ShakespearO said:


> Thanks. It's not very detailed though.
> What I would like to see - subject to appropriate anonymisation obviously - would be the defendants' statements to the cops and their testimony (assuming they gave any) in court.  If anyone has those it would be great, since they are key to understanding how they explained their actions on the night.



It is pretty detailed tbf.  The defence of both defendents is laid out including their explaination for their actions.  Is there something specific you're after.


----------



## JimW (Jan 9, 2015)

JTG said:


> He'll end up at Forest Green Rovers anyway. They all do


Some twat on the forum suggested signing him, not entirely as a wind-up, fortunately got push-back (but some agreement too). I've not signed up but was going to to comment on that but the thread's locked now.


----------



## andysays (Jan 9, 2015)

ShakespearO said:


> Please can you post a link or direct us to these details you have looked at. The only place I found any details is on *the Ched Evans site which, by its nature, is not likely to be impartial or include facts unhelpful to his position*.



Not only that, those responsible for it are also alleged to have broken contempt of court laws.

Ched Evans: Attorney general's office probe into website

This story's a few days old now, but I haven't seen it mentioned here before.


----------



## hash tag (Jan 9, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Millwall's "nobody likes us and we don't care" doesn't mean the fans would tolerate them signing a rapist.



Maybe not, but if he were to sign for them, it would give me a real reason to dislike the local rivals.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 9, 2015)

andysays said:


> Not only that, those responsible for it are also alleged to have broken contempt of court laws.
> 
> Ched Evans: Attorney general's office probe into website
> 
> This story's a few days old now, but I haven't seen it mentioned here before.



There's been murmurings about this for a while, good to know they've finally got round to looking in to it. Could result in future FIL getting banged up, which would be, like, well funny.


----------



## andysays (Jan 9, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> There's been murmurings about this for a while, good to know they've finally got round to looking in to it. Could result in future FIL getting banged up, *which would be, like, well funny*.



I believe the Germans have a special word for it, schadenfreude...


----------



## Wilf (Jan 9, 2015)

"The bride's father gave her away flanked by two G4 goons.  The groom's Licence Conditions unfortunately meant that the Hello photographer was refused admission to the church. In a nice touch, the Chairmen of the Clubs who tried to sign Ched acted as bridegrooms."


----------



## miktheword (Jan 9, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Millwall's "nobody likes us and we don't care" doesn't mean the fans would tolerate them signing a rapist.











Indeed, when forced to endure The New Den for a couple of recent years, I witnessed a certain footballer convicted of assaulting a woman after she rejected his advances in a nightclub, having to endure  sarf lunnon's finest chanting, ' she said No, ....on, she said No!' ( to the tune of kumbaya, my lord)


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 9, 2015)

I like the idea of bringing rape alarms to matches and setting them off each time he has the ball.


----------



## hash tag (Jan 9, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> I like the idea of bringing rape alarms to matches and setting them off each time he has the ball.



Brilliant idea, like it. Sadly all the rape alarms ive heard are pretty useless and ignired.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 9, 2015)

Considering whichever club, if any, does take the scumcunt will be tiny, a group of 30 or so shouting RAPIST, RAPIST, RAPIST every time he gets the ball will be enough.


----------



## gosub (Jan 9, 2015)

"Scumfucker", wholly inappropriate adjective given the circumstances


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 9, 2015)

gosub said:


> "Scumfucker", wholly inappropriate adjective given the circumstances



Yes, just thought exactly the same thing. Edited.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 9, 2015)

Wilf said:


> "The bride's father gave her away flanked by two G4 goons.  The groom's Licence Conditions unfortunately meant that the Hello photographer was refused admission to the church. In a nice touch, the Chairmen of the Clubs who tried to sign Ched acted as bridegrooms."



...........earlier due to failed CRB checks, and the inconvenience of the sex offenders list, the groom had had to leave the room as the page boy presented the rings, the groom was only allowed to return when the page boy had left the building and the area was declared safe.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 9, 2015)

Shame that bridesmaids had to be in a different building, but best not break your parole...


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 9, 2015)

Stick the phrase 'buyers remorse' on your 'phrases of twats' bingo card (alongside 'UK plc', 'productive sections of the economy' and all the rest). I wish I was better at not reading comments under articles.


----------



## past caring (Jan 9, 2015)

hash tag said:


> Maybe not, but if he were to sign for them, it would give me a real reason to dislike the local rivals.


Fuck off you silly anorak cunt.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Jan 9, 2015)

ShakespearO said:


> Thanks. It's not very detailed though.
> What I would like to see - subject to appropriate anonymisation obviously - would be the defendants' statements to the cops and their testimony (assuming they gave any) in court.  If anyone has those it would be great, since they are key to understanding how they explained their actions on the night.


Statements and other case materials are very difficult to obtain unless you're a party to the proceedings or you're willing to pay the Crown Court for a transcript (and these aren't cheap).



heinous seamus said:


> The finest legal mind of his generation, Steve Bruce, has looked closely at the case and decided Ched has a case for appeal
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30742947


A lot of people seem to think that an appeal is some sort of do-over. Unless an error in law was made by the judge or misleading evidence was presented to the jury, there is no basis for an appeal. As others have said, the jury heard the defence case and still convicted Evans.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 9, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> I'll admit I was slightly taken aback by one of them as we had half the conversation yesterday and he seemed to be of a similar opinion to me that he should not play.
> 
> Argument was along the lines of 'well he's been to prison, why should there be any other consequences?'


I wonder how many of the the people spouting this crap would be up in arms if they found a school was employing someone with a conviction for dealing cannabis?


----------



## gosub (Jan 10, 2015)

emanymton said:


> I wonder how many of the the people spouting this crap would be up in arms if they found a school was employing someone with a conviction for dealing cannabis?




If his job involved dealing with kids (no pun intended) he would have been barred by "virtue" of being on the sex offenders register.  A clear and understandable distinction.  We have goalposts and they seem sensibly placed.



When I first read about this was queasy about basically destroying a mans life coz he had had sex with a women who had had 4 pints, (it is bit messier than that) but remembered today an incident 15-20 years ago, when a mate let someone else I knew kip on the sofa after the pub.  He came in her room in the middle of night and raped her.  She didn't bother going to the police, no point no chance of conviction in those days,but we ostracized him so much he jumped off a motorway bridge.  Didn't kill him, broke his legs and he was still concious when the truck ran him over. I/We had no remorse about that at the time. Even ten years later when I heard him explaining in a pub that he walked with a cane because of a "bike accident" I made the point of correcting him. Amazing what you forget.


----------



## bemused (Jan 10, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> fucking hell - gordan taylor should resign for that shit.



Agree, how Hillsborough is in any way analogous to this case is beyond me. 

Whether Evan's believes he is innocent or at some later date his conviction magically disappears he is in fact a convicted rapist. So it shouldn't surprise Taylor than fans or commercial partners of clubs Evans is linked with don't want a rapist associated with his club. As Evans professional body it's fair enough he should be trying to support him finding a job but shouldn't be commenting on the circumstances of his case.

I also note that despite suggesting he has doubts over Evans conviction his apology doesn't extend to the victim who by suggesting Evans may be innocent implies she is somehow at fault. 

How this fool is in a million pound a year job is staggering.


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 10, 2015)

Vince Cable's aide, another legal expert obvs...

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jan/09/vince-cables-aide-ched-evans-probably-not-guilty


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 10, 2015)

http://footylaw.co.uk/2015/01/06/ched-evans-sifting-facts-from-fiction/

Quite a clear look at the legal issues here. Mostly stuff that's been covered although this is an interesting point I don't think has been mentioned: 



> The range of appropriate sentences for Ched Evans’ offence was between four and eight years; the Appeal Court said. Evans was sentenced to five years – at the lower end of the scale. We don’t know why the trial judge reached this decision, but he had in mind that Evans’ had no future as a footballer, telling him that he had “thrown away the successful career in which you were involved.”


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 10, 2015)

Chip Barm said:


> Vince Cable's aide, another legal expert obvs...
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jan/09/vince-cables-aide-ched-evans-probably-not-guilty




the rotten bastard lib dems


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 10, 2015)

Lawro on Football Focus described Evans as 'also a victim' in all this


----------



## gosub (Jan 10, 2015)

twentythreedom said:


> Lawro on Football Focus described Evans as 'also a victim' in all this



I would imagine most footballers views on this are coloured by the number of women who see footballers as a dream ticket to an easy life. Such journeys however, don't usually start with falling over drunk in a kebab shop.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2015)

Will it never end!?


----------



## hash tag (Jan 10, 2015)

Hopefully, because these crap attitudes still persist in small pockets of society...ie no respect for women, when rape is not rape, drunken people not deserving protection etc.
Hopefully, continual conversations will help put an end to these mindless stoneage attitudes.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 10, 2015)

Over the Christmas period STV Glasgow were playing adverts almost on a constant loop about how if you get caught drunk driving then you may as well kiss your life goodbye, the implication being that if you are caught not only will you have a 20 year criminal record but you will lose your job, your family life will be strained if not broken and if you can get another job it won't be what you were doing before. And you won't be driving. Whilst I've no doubt they overegged the pudding somewhat, it seems odd that there could be greater penalties for being over the limit (excluding causing death whilst driving, obviously) and greater consequences long term than Ched Evans expects there to be for being convicted of rape.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 10, 2015)

gosub said:


> I would imagine most footballers views on this are coloured by the number of women who see footballers as a dream ticket to an easy life. Such journeys however, don't usually start with falling over drunk in a kebab shop.


I'm sure you imagine many things


----------



## binka (Jan 10, 2015)

binka said:


> woman at work today refered to evans as being 'hounded', mind you she also refered to the recent historic sex abuse cases as 'witch hunts'. not sure what it is that makes some people determined to be rape apologists.


her on thursday 'how do we know she didnt agree to go back to the hotel with both of them for a gang bang' me 'well considering neither of the accused even suggested this was what happened then why would you even think it a possibility?' 'oh well i havent read all the details of the case'. fucking hell.


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 10, 2015)

binka said:


> 'how do we know she didnt agree to go back to the hotel with both of them for a gang bang'



Response: "It sounds like you might have  experience of such nights out?"


----------



## cesare (Jan 10, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> Over the Christmas period STV Glasgow were playing adverts almost on a constant loop about how if you get caught drunk driving then you may as well kiss your life goodbye, the implication being that if you are caught not only will you have a 20 year criminal record but you will lose your job, your family life will be strained if not broken and if you can get another job it won't be what you were doing before. And you won't be driving. Whilst I've no doubt they overegged the pudding somewhat, it seems odd that there could be greater penalties for being over the limit (excluding causing death whilst driving, obviously) and greater consequences long term than Ched Evans expects there to be for being convicted of rape.


The greater consequences long term could be that a drunk driver kills one or more people. This could lead into all sorts of discussion about the relative merits of drunk drivers v rapists but to pre-empt that I'll just observe that an act of drunken raping can be far less lethal than an act of drunken driving.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 10, 2015)

cesare said:


> I'll just observe that an act of drunken raping can be far less lethal than an act of drunken driving.



Apart from the psychological trauma to the victim and a massively increased risk of long term depression and suicide - and then there's  how that impacts on the victims family and kids etc.

And where the fuck are people getting this 'miscarriage of justice' shit from? The facts of the case are not disputed - its weather those facts constituted rape. The jury unanimously decided they did. Clearly there are WAY too many people who think that having sex with an unconscious women you have never met before is somehow consensual. This shit needs to be challenged.


----------



## bemused (Jan 10, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> And where the fuck are people getting this 'miscarriage of justice' shit from? The facts of the case are not disputed - its weather those facts constituted rape. The jury unanimously decided they did. Clearly there are WAY too many people who think that having sex with an unconscious women you have never met before is somehow consensual. This shit need to be challenged.



I guess they get it from the fact the case is under review. Which strikes me as a severe case of prejudging the outcome of that. He had two appeals denied so I assume it's a pretty solid case against him.


----------



## cesare (Jan 11, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Apart from the psychological trauma to the victim and a massively increased risk of long term depression and suicide - and then there's  how that impacts on the victims family and kids etc.
> 
> And where the fuck are people getting this 'miscarriage of justice' shit from? The facts of the case are not disputed - its weather those facts constituted rape. The jury unanimously decided they did. Clearly there are WAY too many people who think that having sex with an unconscious women you have never met before is somehow consensual. This shit needs to be challenged.


You don't think there's psychological trauma to the victim and the family of the victim of a drunken driver? Me and my family were far more traumatised by my sister being killed by a drunken driver, than by my rape.

Ched Evans hasn't just committed rape; he's committed a second offence which is that of using his power and position in hounding/encouraging the hounding of his rape victim. It's rape+ and he's a cunt.

I object to you quoting me out of context of the rest of my post, btw.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 11, 2015)

cesare said:


> You don't think there's psychological trauma to the victim and the family of the victim of a drunken driver? Me and my family were far more traumatised by my sister being killed by a drunken driver, than by my rape.
> 
> Ched Evans hasn't just committed rape; he's committed a second offence which is that of using his power and position in hounding/encouraging the hounding of his rape victim. It's rape+ and he's a cunt.
> 
> I object to you quoting me out of context of the rest of my post, btw.



Apologies. Part of the argument of the people trying to defend Evans is to play down the effect on the victim and your post could have been seen as grist to that mill. Its clear that isn't what you were doing. Sorry for the shit you've had to go through as well.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jan 11, 2015)

At this moment in time I am having my morning break at work, the three lads sat opposite all said pretty much in unison, '' I bet all blokes have had sex with a woman too drunk too remember at sometime!''
This is the second time that this lot have said this in the last few weeks.
My arguing that it's rape is met with questions about my manhood.
Are they just:
Rapists?
Thick?
Lads mouthing off to get a violent response from me?
I am seriously thinking about getting another job or at least getting transferred.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 11, 2015)

hash tag said:


> Hopefully, because these crap attitudes still persist in small pockets of society...ie no respect for women, when rape is not rape, drunken people not deserving protection etc.
> Hopefully, continual conversations will help put an end to these mindless stoneage attitudes.



I don't know why you think these attitudes are only present in small pockets of society.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 11, 2015)

Piece by Catherine Bennett in the guardian comparing the evans case with those of Polanski and assange:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/11/one-law-for-polanski-another-for-ched-evans
Not sure she's got it right when she implies there's a lack of criticism of Windsor and the whole thing is a bit too focussed on what celebs have done and said.  Same time she does have a point about Polanski and assange.


----------



## Looby (Jan 11, 2015)

Chip Barm said:


> Response: "It sounds like you might have  experience of such nights out?"



Maybe a shit response, yes.


----------



## quiquaquo (Jan 11, 2015)

cesare said:


> You don't think there's psychological trauma to the victim and the family of the victim of a drunken driver? Me and my family were far more traumatised by my sister being killed by a drunken driver, than by my rape.
> 
> *Ched Evans hasn't just committed rape; he's committed a second offence which is that of using his power and position in hounding/encouraging the hounding of his rape victim. It's rape+ and he's a cunt.*
> 
> I object to you quoting me out of context of the rest of my post, btw.



Exactly, well said.


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 11, 2015)

sparklefish said:


> Maybe a shit response, yes.



Its all a shit opinion warrants sometimes.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 12, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Piece by Catherine Bennett in the guardian comparing the evans case with those of Polanski and assange:
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/11/one-law-for-polanski-another-for-ched-evans
> Not sure she's got it right when she implies there's a lack of criticism of Windsor and the whole thing is a bit too focussed on what celebs have done and said.  Same time she does have a point about Polanski and assange.



Was in yesterday's Observer (not always that clear online tbf)

I was going to link to that myself, to comment on what a thoroughly shit article it was.

In short, because :

1. She's too wound up with celebreties (as you say), and
2. From that, she seems to be attempting to draw weird (and probably false) parallels.
3. She doesn't appear to know too much about the specifics of the Ched Evans case either.
4. She clearly knows fuck all about football generally.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 12, 2015)

From the sports bit of yesterday's Observer, Daniel Taylor's attack on Gordon Taylor was pretty good I thought. (He also has a good pop at Steve Bruce).

This from the end of the article :




			
				Daniel Taylor said:
			
		

> When Marlon King was serving a prison sentence for sexual assault and ABH in 2009 Taylor released a statement that is worth reflecting on now. “The PFA does not represent players when they have broken the law and been convicted on non-football matters.”
> 
> It does now, clearly, making up the rules as it goes along, while the rest of us watch through the gaps in our fingers.



WTF!


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 14, 2015)

cesare said:


> The greater consequences long term could be that a drunk driver kills one or more people. This could lead into all sorts of discussion about the relative merits of drunk drivers v rapists but to pre-empt that I'll just observe that an act of drunken raping can be far less lethal than an act of drunken driving.


I've been thinking about this for a few days, but in general whilst the effects of rape may not be immediately lethal to the victim, there have been documented cases where the victim has committed suicide directly because of the rape, and there was a case about a decade ago in Scotland where the rape victim committed suicide because the rapist insisted on representing himself at trial and asked her many intrusive questions, culminating in asking her to hold up the underwear she was wearing when she was raped. 

Anyway, I agree that a discussion of the relative merits of drunk drivers v rapists is not for this thread so I'll stop there with my own observation.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 14, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> I've been thinking about this for a few days, but in general whilst the effects of rape may not be immediately lethal to the victim, there have been documented cases where the victim has committed suicide directly because of the rape, and there was a case about a decade ago in Scotland where the rape victim committed suicide because the rapist insisted on representing himself at trial and asked her many intrusive questions, culminating in asking her to hold up the underwear she was wearing when she was raped.
> 
> Anyway, I agree that a discussion of the relative merits of drunk drivers v rapists is not for this thread so I'll stop there with my own observation.



A lot of people don't report rape because of what the trial is going to be like.


----------



## cesare (Jan 14, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> Apologies. Part of the argument of the people trying to defend Evans is to play down the effect on the victim and your post could have been seen as grist to that mill. Its clear that isn't what you were doing. Sorry for the shit you've had to go through as well.


Thanks, appreciated


----------



## D'wards (Jan 14, 2015)

frogwoman said:


> A lot of people don't report rape because of what the trial is going to be like.


 This is tricky because one thing everyone deserves is a fair trial, with all the evidence presented. I can't see anyway around this, and the accompanying trauma.


----------



## hash tag (Jan 14, 2015)

I understand that very few rape cases get reported because of the way the offended is treated by the police, lawyers and so on. I think its also true that the few cases reported proceed to court and get a conviction. Bearing in mind how appalingly the woman in this case has been treated, even fewer people will report this. The defendant in this case has had a horrendeous time and certainly deserves much much better.


----------



## toggle (Jan 14, 2015)

this looks like worst case scenario because it's all over the internet, but bar the scale of the problem, this is why people don't report rapes by someone they know, someone they have mutual freinds/aquaintances/neighbours etc with, because the judgement and ostracism faced by evans victim is what many women would face. there's so many people who are so much happier to judge the victim than the rapist.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 14, 2015)

D'wards said:


> This is tricky because one thing everyone deserves is a fair trial, with all the evidence presented. I can't see anyway around this, and the accompanying trauma.



There is no real way to avoid the trauma of a trial, often it is said it is akin to be raped all over again. The only thing in this respect is that sentencing should be stiffened to reflect the added rapists cause their victims when going for a not guilty. Not the third off you normally get for a guilty plea, but double time for a not guilty.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 14, 2015)

hash tag said:


> I understand that very few rape cases get reported because of the way the offended is treated by the police, lawyers and so on. I think its also true that the few cases reported proceed to court and get a conviction. Bearing in mind how appalingly the woman in this case has been treated, even fewer people will report this. The defendant in this case has had a horrendeous time and certainly deserves much much better.



Defendant?


----------



## bluescreen (Jan 14, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Defendant?


An understandable slip, given that the complainant has had to defend herself from so much vilification.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 14, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> I've been thinking about this for a few days, but in general whilst the effects of rape may not be immediately lethal to the victim, there have been documented cases where the victim has committed suicide directly because of the rape, and there was a case about a decade ago in Scotland where the rape victim committed suicide because the rapist insisted on representing himself at trial and asked her many intrusive questions, culminating in asking her to hold up the underwear she was wearing when she was raped.



A more recent and equally tragic case: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/feb/08/sexual-abuse-victim-killed-herself-trial


----------



## toggle (Jan 14, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> There is no real way to avoid the trauma of a trial, often it is said it is akin to be raped all over again. The only thing in this respect is that sentencing should be stiffened to reflect the added rapists cause their victims when going for a not guilty. Not the third off you normally get for a guilty plea, but double time for a not guilty.



no. you cannot make rape trials a special case any more than absolutely necessary. eg not allowing defendants to question the victim (and realistically, no defendent in any case of crime against a person should be questioning their victim). the more you separate out rape trials from other court cases with different rules, the more likely you are to get juries refusing to convict. Too many people interpret such rules as feminist conspiracy or other such nonsense and it will increace the perception of the defendent as victim of allegations that would be unprovable in a 'proper court'. these things always seem like a good idea, but I believe they would be hugely counterproductive. we can't fix this problem without fixing society in general


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2015)

D'wards said:


> This is tricky because one thing everyone deserves is a fair trial, with all the evidence presented. I can't see anyway around this, and the accompanying trauma.



It's not generally the process of trial itself that causes problems for victims, it's whether the judge gives leeway to the defence that allows the defence to introduce prurient and unnecessary questions of the victim - basically sanctioned intimidation. Unless judges are statutorily directed to not allow such shit, trials will never be fair, especially not for victims.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 14, 2015)

Perhaps Evans could learn from this: Roy Evans kid left his job rather than sells S*N shite.

Cheers and thanks to BA for posting this elsewhere - Louis MacNeice


----------



## toggle (Jan 14, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not generally the process of trial itself that causes problems for victims, it's whether the judge gives leeway to the defence that allows the defence to introduce prurient and unnecessary questions of the victim - basically sanctioned intimidation. Unless judges are statutorily directed to not allow such shit, trials will never be fair, especially not for victims.



it's not just the questioning of the victim, it can also be evidence introduced about her. eg mental health history that can be largely based on prejudice rather than any credible belief that long ago treatment for depression would be linked to an allegation made due to delusions or just a tendency to lie. but from what i've read, judges don't often stop questioning because they don't want to prevent a 'fair trial'. this can also be used as a backdoor to introduce comments that the victim has made a prior complaint and prejudice juries against her, lightning doesn't strike the same place twice, a woman can't have been raped more than once, she has to have a history of making false allegations.


----------



## marty21 (Jan 14, 2015)

There is hopefully a positive aspect to the Ched Evans case, all the publicity about the original trial, the conviction, the sentence, the release and his failed attempt to return to the game. This might just filter through to current and future players and maybe they will behave better in the future


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 14, 2015)

How can turning up to a hotel to fuck a semi-conscious woman you've never met as your mates watch through the window after being invited by text by another toad be anything but a violation of that woman? 

Why wasn't mcdonald also collared for being an accessory for a crime at the very least? He instigated it.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 14, 2015)

toggle said:


> this looks like worst case scenario because it's all over the internet, but bar the scale of the problem, this is why people don't report rapes by someone they know, someone they have mutual freinds/aquaintances/neighbours etc with, because the judgement and ostracism faced by evans victim is what many women would face. there's so many people who are so much happier to judge the victim than the rapist.


And as the whole sorry Savile/Rolf Harris etc affair has shown, if it's someone famous they are often not believed even if they do report.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 14, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> A more recent and equally tragic case: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/feb/08/sexual-abuse-victim-killed-herself-trial


A tragically and desperately said case. I remember reading about it at the time.


----------



## bluescreen (Jan 14, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> And as the whole sorry Savile/Rolf Harris etc affair has shown, if it's someone famous they are often not believed even if they do report.


Cf how the police ignored complaints by Watkins' fiancée FOUR times, and then prosecuted her for gathering evidence.
*IPCC look into why police ignored Ian Watkins warnings*


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 14, 2015)

The psychological effects of rape can be devastating.  To give some sort of idea of the scale of things, the local rape and sexual violence project has a waiting list of six months to just get an initial assessment for counselling and support from them.  There is a further waiting list after the assessment to actually get the counselling.  It's a huge problem.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 14, 2015)

The father-in-law is the biggest bastard in all this. Bourgeois cunt using his wealth to harass the victim and attempt to buy back the reputation of the commodity that has fuck all respect for women, including his own daughter. Seriously twisted money orientated people.


----------



## cesare (Jan 14, 2015)

purenarcotic said:


> The psychological effects of rape can be devastating.  To give some sort of idea of the scale of things, the local rape and sexual violence project has a waiting list of six months to just get an initial assessment for counselling and support from them.  There is a further waiting list after the assessment to actually get the counselling.  It's a huge problem.


I agree (just in case anyone thinks that the psychological effects of rape and my rape have gone unnoticed by me, in some way).


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 14, 2015)

marty21 said:


> There is hopefully a positive aspect to the Ched Evans case, all the publicity about the original trial, the conviction, the sentence, the release and his failed attempt to return to the game. This might just filter through to current and future players and maybe they will behave better in the future


We can but help. even small changes help shape the large ones - would so many people have actively voiced their opinions in such a cohesive manner even ten years ago? At least social media has helped get the word out their and give an outlet for people's voices when they strongly disagree with something.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 14, 2015)

cesare said:


> I agree (just in case anyone thinks that the psychological effects of rape and my rape have gone unnoticed by me, in some way).


God no. And I'm also sorry for everything you and your family have been through


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 14, 2015)

purenarcotic said:


> The psychological effects of rape can be devastating.  To give some sort of idea of the scale of things, the local rape and sexual violence project has a waiting list of six months to just get an initial assessment for counselling and support from them.  There is a further waiting list after the assessment to actually get the counselling.  It's a huge problem.


Christ that's depressing.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 14, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> Christ that's depressing.



Obviously a lack of funding for staff adds fuel to the fire but there is so little free counselling out there that the service is totally and utterly overwhelmed.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jan 14, 2015)

cesare said:


> I agree (just in case anyone thinks that the psychological effects of rape and my rape have gone unnoticed by me, in some way).



That wasn't meant to be a dig or anything, I hope I haven't caused any offence or anything (haven't read the thread much).


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 14, 2015)

Transfer of funds from social to private hands.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 14, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Transfer of funds from social to private hands.


For counselling? Your post isn't clear what you mean.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 14, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> For counselling? Your post isn't clear what you mean.



Sorry, I mean what's going on backstage during our current 'financial crisis' which counselling has fallen victim to. In the broad economic sense. I'm not suggesting those units have been privatised, although that may come.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 14, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Sorry, I mean what's going on backstage during our current 'financial crisis' which counselling has fallen victim to. In the broad economic sense. I'm not suggesting those units have been privatised, although that may come.


it's a horrendous thought which no doubt the tories will leap upon. And the only people that will suffer are the ones who need support the most.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2015)

purenarcotic said:


> The psychological effects of rape can be devastating.  To give some sort of idea of the scale of things, the local rape and sexual violence project has a waiting list of six months to just get an initial assessment for counselling and support from them.  There is a further waiting list after the assessment to actually get the counselling.  It's a huge problem.



Resources are (and always have been) strained, and given that the volume of victims reporting to such projects is a fraction of the total volume of victims, this just points up how power perceives women in general, and raped women in particular (I've deliberately said "power" rather than "society",because I believe that society as a whole is slightly more enlightened than those who hold the reins of power). They're a "cause" to be paid  lip service to, rather than being victims of a systemic power imbalance that frequently helps facilitate their violation.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 16, 2015)

Ched Evans said:
			
		

> “It has been claimed that those using social media in an abusive and vindictive way towards this woman are supporters of mine,” the statement said. “I wish to make it clear that these people are not my supporters and I condemn their actions entirely.”



http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jan/15/ched-evans-friend-victim



> A “true friend and supporter” of Ched Evans made abusive comments about the convicted rapist’s victim and posted a link to a website that unlawfully names her, the Guardian can reveal.
> 
> Ciaran Goggins’ picture was posted in a gallery of photographs on the website set up by Evans’s family and friends to maintain the former Manchester City, Sheffield United and Wales striker’s innocence... Goggins tweeted during last week’s furore over Oldham Athletic’s ultimately cancelled effort to sign Evans: “I am proud to be the only non-blood relative on #justiceforched site.”
> 
> The Evans website displayed a picture of Goggins, tagged “a True Friend and Supporter” at an Amnesty International conference, wearing a T-shirt picturing a smiling Evans and the logo “Ched Evans is innocent”.




What d'ya know, the Evans' statement was bullshit. *shocked that a rapist scumbag is also a liar*


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 17, 2015)

Ched Evans website referred to CPS over alleged identification of rape victim

http://gu.com/p/45vkm


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 17, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jan/15/ched-evans-friend-victim
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hold the phone...! 

He was at an Amesty International conference, wearing a "Ched Evans is innocent" t shirt? He sees this as an Amnesty-style human rights issue?!


----------



## The Boy (Jan 17, 2015)

spanglechick said:


> Hold the phone...!
> 
> He was at an Amesty International conference, wearing a "Ched Evans is innocent" t shirt? He sees this as an Amnesty-style human rights issue?!



Isn't that standard?


----------



## jcsd (Jan 18, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not generally the process of trial itself that causes problems for victims, it's whether the judge gives leeway to the defence that allows the defence to introduce prurient and unnecessary questions of the victim - basically sanctioned intimidation. Unless judges are statutorily directed to not allow such shit, trials will never be fair, especially not for victims.


For me the bigger problem seems to be perception of what might happen at Court rather than what is likely to happen in court. For example what you have said simply is not true, the defence can't just ask the victim whatever they like and they certainly can't seek to intimidate the victim. In particular there are statutory protections preventing the defence from discussing the complainant's previous sexual history unless they can argue beforehand that not discussing it will lead to an unfair trial.


----------



## bluescreen (Jan 18, 2015)

jcsd, I put it to you that while (which is not admitted) the risk may be small, the potential damage is unendurable. So rape victims are not willing to put themselves in the position where they risk hostile cross-examination, even if it's within the rules. 
eg: Frances Andrade
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/13/rape-sexual-assault-frances-andrade-court


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Jan 18, 2015)

I don't see what can be done about that, aside from providing better support services for victims. The defence has to be allowed to robustly challenge a prosecution witness, especially when the witness' evidence is the entirety of the prosecution's case.


----------



## toggle (Jan 18, 2015)

MAD-T-REX said:


> I don't see what can be done about that, aside from providing better support services for victims. The defence has to be allowed to robustly challenge a prosecution witness, especially when the witness' evidence is the entirety of the prosecution's case.



education.

the judiciary need to be educated and need to take a strong role in educating juries about rape myths. we need to destroy the ideas that loads of women regularly lie when they regret having had sex, that rape is always a violent physical attack that leaves injuries, that it is only rape if it is overcoming active physical and verbal resistance. 

They also need to discuss victim behavior, someone disassociating will be perceived as lying because they are too unemotional, while someone who shows too much emotion, or the wrong emotions after repeated bullying assertions that they are a liar will often be assumed to be someone who has been 'caught out'. trauma can also do odd things to memory. sometimes, parts of the incident will be forgotten until something triggers recall of that. This is all normal, commonplace, but all results in the witness being considered unreliable. these and the above need to be talked about to juries as a prelude to more education in society about consent and rape myths. 

Questioning also needs to be limited. There need to be clear guidelines on where a victim's medical history is deemed relevant. These are supposed to be in place, but in reality, the defense can still go on a fishing expedition to try to provoke the victim and can drag up any mental health history and use public prejudice, not actual fact to discredit them. people already think women lie loads. and loads of women are crazy. put the two together and you've got no hope. there's also a line between providing a defence, and open bullying. these require guidelines to judges about when evidence should and shouldn't be admissible and when to halt questioning. 

and judges who encourage rape myths instead of challenging them and who allow fishing expeditions and bullying of witnesses need to be kicked off the bench. 

and yes. additional support to victims, someone who can act as a buffer between them and the judicial process. whose voice will be listened to if the police inappropriately question victims, or try to shuffle cases away because of their own prejudices. who can explain the court process, introduce the victim to the prosecutor and give them an idea of what will be required of them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 18, 2015)

jcsd said:


> For me the bigger problem seems to be perception of what might happen at Court rather than what is likely to happen in court. For example what you have said simply is not true, the defence can't just ask the victim whatever they like and they certainly can't seek to intimidate the victim.



I haven't claimed that the defence "can just ask". I specifically stated (it's there, in the post you quoted but perhaps didn't bother to read properly) that the issue is judicial leeway. As for intimidation, if you're a lawyer or a career criminal you may not be intimidated by the court set-up or how the personnel behave, but many "average punters" are. Add to that barristers skilled in rhetoric and semantic gymnastics, and intimidation still often takes place.



> In particular there are statutory protections preventing the defence from discussing the complainant's previous sexual history unless they can argue beforehand that not discussing it will lead to an unfair trial.



And yet, despite that statutory protection and the statutory protections for vulnerable witnesses, somehow it's still an issue for women who've been sexually assaulted and go through the judicial process. As the Americans would say,"go figure!".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 18, 2015)

MAD-T-REX said:


> I don't see what can be done about that, aside from providing better support services for victims. The defence has to be allowed to robustly challenge a prosecution witness, especially when the witness' evidence is the entirety of the prosecution's case.



The point I was attempting to make above,and which jcsd appears to have missed is that part of the problem isn't in statute,it's in judicial discretion. If you've got a judge who lets certain issues slide (and we have a long and ignominious history of ignoble judges), then victims will still be exposed to a ferocity (I use the word advisedly) of questioning that goes beyond "robust challenge". The system is only as good, as neutral, as justice-seeking as those who are part of the criminal justice system and the institutional behaviours they engage in allow it to be.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 18, 2015)

toggle said:


> education.
> 
> the judiciary need to be educated and need to take a strong role in educating juries about rape myths. we need to destroy the ideas that loads of women regularly lie when they regret having had sex, that rape is always a violent physical attack that leaves injuries, that it is only rape if it is overcoming active physical and verbal resistance.
> 
> ...



^^^^This. All of this.


----------



## jcsd (Jan 18, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> jcsd, I put it to you that while (which is not admitted) the risk may be small, the potential damage is unendurable. So rape victims are not willing to put themselves in the position where they risk hostile cross-examination, even if it's within the rules.
> eg: Frances Andrade
> http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/13/rape-sexual-assault-frances-andrade-court


Yes I'm not arguing that victims find the process distressing, what I'm disagreeing with is the assertion that there are widescale abuses by the judiciary and barristers. Where are these ideas coming from? Is it from actual experience, or is it from anecdotal evidence in the media? Are many people's perceptions of rape trials stuck on what may've been common place before certain reforms have been made? How can you solve a problem if you're just taking axiomatically that there are a certain set of reasons behind the problem without really being honest about whether that is the case or not?

In my opinion is it isn't that easy, for example, for a defence barrister to bring up a complainant's sexual history, but I also find it galling that there should be a total prohibition on bringing it up even if it means it leads to unsafe convictions. And I think this is my basic objection to some of what is being suggested - it doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of what actually happens. I'm not suggesting that there are not reforms that can be made and for example there are even as we speak new reforms in terms of how complainants are cross-examined being piloted, I'm just some of what is being said here about rape trials seems to be more about perception than what actually happens

One reform that I personally would make is to reduce the amount of time it takes for a rape case to get to trial. It's true for any criminal case that the more it is delayed then the less likely there will be a conviction, but iu is particularly true for certain kind of cases which are emotionally charged and where the victim and defendant may have or have had a close relationship (there is a tendency to rape as a crime perpetrated by a stranger in a dark alley, but overwhelmingly the victim and rapist will be known to each other and very often they may have a close relationship such as a member of the family, a spouse, a friend, etc) The prime reason for this is that the resolve of victims and witnesses will tend to waiver- for example for a particularly traumatic offence that goes to court two years after the offence happened the victim may feel that they are psychologically recovering from the offence and that having to give evidence could endanger that


----------



## bluescreen (Jan 18, 2015)

Good point on delay. It's painful and unfair all round. Wish we could get that sorted.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 18, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> Good point on delay. It's painful and unfair all round. Wish we could get that sorted.


I was recently a witness on a case of assault and theft that took six months to get even to the stage where I had to go to a police station and watch a DVD of images for a formal identification of the complainant, it was two months before the person who had been assaulted was even fit enough for work, let alone contemplate the stress of a court case.

The court system is overworked and underpaid.


----------



## toggle (Jan 18, 2015)

jcsd said:


> Yes I'm not arguing that victims find the process distressing, what I'm disagreeing with is the assertion that there are widescale abuses by the judiciary and barristers. Where are these ideas coming from? Is it from actual experience, or is it from anecdotal evidence in the media? Are many people's perceptions of rape trials stuck on what may've been common place before certain reforms have been made? How can you solve a problem if you're just taking axiomatically that there are a certain set of reasons behind the problem without really being honest about whether that is the case or not?
> 
> In my opinion is it isn't that easy, for example, for a defence barrister to bring up a complainant's sexual history, *but I also find it galling that there should be a total prohibition on bringing it up even if it means it leads to unsafe convictions. An*d I think this is my basic objection to some of what is being suggested - it doesn't necessarily reflect the reality of what actually happens. I'm not suggesting that there are not reforms that can be made and for example there are even as we speak new reforms in terms of how complainants are cross-examined being piloted, I'm just some of what is being said here about rape trials seems to be more about perception than what actually happens
> 
> One reform that I personally would make is to reduce the amount of time it takes for a rape case to get to trial. It's true for any criminal case that the more it is delayed then the less likely there will be a conviction, but iu is particularly true for certain kind of cases which are emotionally charged and where the victim and defendant may have or have had a close relationship (*there is a tendency to rape as a crime perpetrated by a stranger in a dark alley, but overwhelmingly the victim and rapist will be known to each other and very often they may have a close relationship such as a member of the family, a spouse, a friend, etc*) The prime reason for this is that the resolve of victims and witnesses will tend to waiver- for example for a particularly traumatic offence that goes to court two years after the offence happened the victim may feel that they are psychologically recovering from the offence and that having to give evidence could endanger that





it isn't necessarily about the raising of sexual history, and discussing rape in a relationship it is of course unavoidable to discuss that sex took place in that relationship. it is the fact that there isn't enough challenge to the commonly held idea that it is acceptable to assume consent to an act on one occasion means it can happen anytime, and consent to one act means consent to anything. this is before we get onto the double standards about female sexuality.


----------



## bluescreen (Jan 18, 2015)

toggle said:


> it isn't necessarily about the raising of sexual history, and discussing rape in a relationship it is of course unavoidable to discuss that sex took place in that relationship. it is the fact that there isn't enough challenge to the commonly held idea that it is acceptable to assume consent to an act on one occasion means it can happen anytime, and consent to one act means consent to anything. this is before we get onto the double standards about female sexuality.


Let alone that consent to sex with one person equates to consent to sex with another.


----------



## jcsd (Jan 18, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I haven't claimed that the defence "can just ask". I specifically stated (it's there, in the post you quoted but perhaps didn't bother to read properly) that the issue is judicial leeway. As for intimidation, if you're a lawyer or a career criminal you may not be intimidated by the court set-up or how the personnel behave, but many "average punters" are. Add to that barristers skilled in rhetoric and semantic gymnastics, and intimidation still often takes place.


I did read your post, but the leeway that exists for bringing up the complainants sexual history for example is specifically to make sure there is a fair trial, which I don't see a problem with.

And I think in regards to people being intimidated, there's 3 separate issues: whether barristers deliberately try to intimidate victims (and if they do whether they get away with it), whether victims feel intimidated and to what extent this feeling is unavoidable in the context of a fair trial.

I'm not going to pretend that barristers never cross the line, but I do not agree with the idea that there is wide scale judicial-sanctioned intimidation of victims by the defence. I don't dispute though that victims do frequently feel intimidated. The third issue is the real issue to me and I think you can't completely avoid all the unpleasant aspects of giving evidence: if you've been subjected to a sexual assault having your truthfulness and reliability called into question may be traunamtic, but on the other hand you can't have a fair trial if the defence are not allowed to question the truthfulness and reliability of witnesses into account. It doesn't mean nothing can be done and the system should be accepted as unimprovable I will add.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 18, 2015)

jcsd said:


> I did read your post, but the leeway that exists for bringing up the complainants sexual history for example is specifically to make sure there is a fair trial, which I don't see a problem with.
> 
> And I think in regards to people being intimidated, there's 3 separate issues: whether barristers deliberately try to intimidate victims (and if they do whether they get away with it), whether victims feel intimidated and to what extent this feeling is unavoidable in the context of a fair trial.
> 
> I'm not going to pretend that barristers never cross the line, but I do not agree with the idea that there is wide scale judicial-sanctioned intimidation of victims by the defence. I don't dispute though that victims do frequently feel intimidated. The third issue is the real issue to me and I think you can't completely avoid all the unpleasant aspects of giving evidence: if you've been subjected to a sexual assault having your truthfulness and reliability called into question may be traunamtic, but on the other hand you can't have a fair trial if the defence are not allowed to question the truthfulness and reliability of witnesses into account. It doesn't mean nothing can be done and the system should be accepted as unimprovable I will add.


In what context of 'there must be a fair trial' can a victim's past sexual history be possibly brought up? How is it at all relevant to being raped?

Being cross-examined by a strange person with increasingly intimate detail is intimidating, and jurors have been known to apply their own assumptions about how a victim reacts (or doesn't react) in reaching a verdict (she didn't cry on the stand so she can't have been that affected by what happened, she's a hysterical drama queen because she's crying so much, she got defensive when questioned so she must be lying etc). Allowing a victim's sexual history to be brought into this can only be prejudicial against the victim.


----------



## jcsd (Jan 18, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> In what context of 'there must be a fair trial' can a victim's past sexual history be possibly brought up? How is it at all relevant to being raped?



A lot of the time it isn't relevant and can't be brought up, however there are times when not bringing it up would prejudice the whole process.For example: Person A might claim that they were raped by person B who they are in a relationship with, whereas person B says yes they did have sex, but it was consensual. There may've been an almost identical allegation made by person A against person B, where again the issue had been one of consent, but which later proved to be false as a result of person A being exposed to have lied and then followed to some sort of formal action against person A. The defence could apply to bring up the false allegation by making a bad character application against person A, but to bring up the details of the allegation they'd also have to bring up person A's previous sexual history and would have to make an application to do that. Of course the fact of the previous false allegation doesn't immunize person B from any further allegations by person A, but if the case rested on the credibility of person A then the defence would argue that it would be unfair for the defence not to be able to discuss the details of an almost identical previous allegation which proved to be false.

Now I must admit I've chosen a very extreme example for the purpose of illustrating a point, the CPS website explains the circumstances when such an application might be allowed: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/yjcea_1999/



> Being cross-examined by a strange person with increasingly intimate detail is intimidating, and jurors have been known to apply their own assumptions about how a victim reacts (or doesn't react) in reaching a verdict (she didn't cry on the stand so she can't have been that affected by what happened, she's a hysterical drama queen because she's crying so much, she got defensive when questioned so she must be lying etc). Allowing a victim's sexual history to be brought into this can only be prejudicial against the victim.


As I said there's no question that victims do find the process intimidating, but I don't think I have much more to say than I did in my previous post about the need to be able to challenge evidence to have a fair trial and that I'm not saying there's no improvements that could be made.

I would take issue though with your point about jurors as I am not sure how what you say can be anything other than reporting someone's (i.e. your own or someone else's) perception of why jurors reach their verdicts (as opposed to being based on solid evidence) due to the very strict restrictions in the UK on jurors discussing cases they have sat on. For what it's worth and though it doesn't cover exactly what you've said, a major study of jurors carried out in 2010 said the following:




			
				Professor Cheryl Thomas said:
			
		

> The most serious criticism of juries in rape cases is that they fail to convict because of jurors’ prejudicial attitudes towards female complainants, not because of the difficulty in proving allegations which hinge on juries believing one person’s version of events over another’s (Temkin & Krahe, 2008). However, an analysis of jury conviction rates in rape cases by both age and gender of the complainant (figure 3.13) raises doubts about a general jury bias against female complainants.
> 
> ......
> 
> This suggests that a jury’s propensity to convict or acquit in rape cases is not necessarily due to juror attitudes to female complainants. There is no doubt the proportion of rape allegations reported to police that end in conviction is extremely low, but it is also clear that this not due to any widespread jury failure to convict in rape cases.



http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads...sis/moj-research/are-juries-fair-research.pdf


----------



## toggle (Jan 18, 2015)

don't have time to go through that in huge detail, but people are very good at justifying rather than admitting their prejudices.it's not prejudice, ti's common sence, it's backed by 'proof'. 

and trying to remember where, but also been told that discussions on victims sexual and medical history is allowed to take place far too much when it isn't relavent. that the guidelines aren't as clear in practice as they should be.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 19, 2015)

In one of the crime books i have, the police had a very strong case yet the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. It transpired that a male juror didn't believe the victim's account of the rape as he point blank refused to believe intercourse could take place standing up.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 19, 2015)

What I am trying to say is that assumptions are made which can impact a rape case in all sorts of ways


----------



## bluescreen (Jan 19, 2015)

Hard to know what goes on in a jury, as they are not supposed to talk about it, ever. In England & Wales, anyway. We really need some serious research. Jury trial is a sacred cow. Maybe it is wonderful. Maybe it is stupid, prejudiced and corruptible. We need to know.


----------



## bluescreen (Jan 19, 2015)

What is the book, equationgirl?


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 19, 2015)

bluescreen said:


> What is the book, equationgirl?


Not sure I can remember offhand to be honest. One of the true crime ones I have, or one by Linda fairstein who worked as a sexual crimes prosecutor in manhattan for over 20 years.


----------



## bluescreen (Jan 19, 2015)

Thanks anyway. I'm sure there are plenty of similar views this side of the pond. I applaud Alison Saunders' pledge to tackle rape myths but haven't heard what progress is being made.


----------



## belboid (Jan 28, 2015)

Evans submits 'fresh evidence' to his criminal case review

http://www.theguardian.com/football...vidence-rape-criminal-cases-review-commission


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 28, 2015)

I have to wonder what this fresh evidence is. Based on how badly he seems to be being advised so far it has to be something unbelievably shit.

An arrest by the fashion police shouldn't be too far off either, wtf is that he's got on?


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 28, 2015)

Yes, I 'm quite interested in what this evidence is and why it's taken until now to present it.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 29, 2015)

http://metro.co.uk/2015/01/28/new-r...ve-any-grey-area-over-sexual-consent-5040439/



> New guidelines will remove ‘any grey area’ over what constitutes sexual consent in a bid to reduce inconsistencies in the way rape cases are dealt with.
> 
> The fresh guidance spells out situations where victims would not be in a position to agree to sex, such as states of incapacitation through drink or drugs, when victims have mental health problems or learning difficulties and when they are sleeping or unconscious.
> 
> ...



I'm sure his review will go well...


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 29, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> Yes, I 'm quite interested in what this evidence is and why it's taken until now to present it.



Given the high profile nature of every aspect of this case plus the reality that the vast majority of the facts are not disputed it is very hard to figure what new evidence there can be.  Of course there is no chance that its further 'background' information on the reliability of the victim, no chance at all.


----------



## gosub (Jan 29, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> http://metro.co.uk/2015/01/28/new-r...ve-any-grey-area-over-sexual-consent-5040439/
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure his review will go well...


Grandfather rights


----------



## Dogsauce (Jan 29, 2015)

Teaboy said:


> Given the high profile nature of every aspect of this case plus the reality that the vast majority of the facts are not disputed it is very hard to figure what new evidence there can be.



I think he has some kind of Scooby Doo ending up his sleeve.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 29, 2015)

gosub said:


> Grandfather rights



Doesn't apply, the law is not being changed here, just properly applied.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 29, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> http://metro.co.uk/2015/01/28/new-r...ve-any-grey-area-over-sexual-consent-5040439/
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure his review will go well...



Please nobody jump on my back for this, I'm convinced Evans is guilty and deserves everything he gets and I'm no rape apologist. I know I've got quite a lot to learn about this - though I like to think my gut instincts are generally sound. I'm just wondering how the law might apply to people with mental health problems or learning difficulties. Does the victim have to make a complaint for a case to be made? I'm sure the law allows for this somewhere - since in just about every other area the deck is rigged in favour of the accused - but would someone in a genuine loving relationship with someone with special needs or a mental illness be able to have a sexual relationship with them? I'm not crying feminazi or saying innocent people are in danger of getting done for rape - more interested to know how the law allows for couples like I've just described. If a complaint has to be made by the victim then I guess that covers it but I'm not really sure how it works.


----------



## toggle (Jan 29, 2015)

SpineyNorman said:


> Please nobody jump on my back for this, I'm convinced Evans is guilty and deserves everything he gets and I'm no rape apologist. I know I've got quite a lot to learn about this - though I like to think my gut instincts are generally sound. I'm just wondering how the law might apply to people with mental health problems or learning difficulties. Does the victim have to make a complaint for a case to be made? I'm sure the law allows for this somewhere - since in just about every other area the deck is rigged in favour of the accused - but would someone in a genuine loving relationship with someone with special needs or a mental illness be able to have a sexual relationship with them? I'm not crying feminazi or saying innocent people are in danger of getting done for rape - more interested to know how the law allows for couples like I've just described. If a complaint has to be made by the victim then I guess that covers it but I'm not really sure how it works.



http://www.newworkforceissues.net/ldissues.html

That came up on google as a resource for carers. the key points seem to be  mind your own business unless the person has been deemed as not having capacity to consent, but there are procedures to follow if you suspect exploitation. and capacity to consent seems to be defined as the ability to understand the act and potential consequences of it, as well as the ability to communicate their understanding and consent. 

IDK how that works in practice, but the aims seem to be that anyone who is able to have a safe loving sexual relationship should not be prevented and they should be given apropriate support and assistance.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 29, 2015)

toggle said:


> http://www.newworkforceissues.net/ldissues.html
> 
> That came up on google as a resource for carers. the key points seem to be  mind your own business unless the person has been deemed as not having capacity to consent, but there are procedures to follow if you suspect exploitation. and capacity to consent seems to be defined as the ability to understand the act and potential consequences of it, as well as the ability to communicate their understanding and consent.
> 
> IDK how that works in practice, but the aims seem to be that anyone who is able to have a safe loving sexual relationship should not be prevented and they should be given apropriate support and assistance.



 thanks


----------



## bemused (Jan 29, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> Yes, I 'm quite interested in what this evidence is and why it's taken until now to present it.



I assume because he's never had an appeal in court they've not be able to present it? Given he was refused leave to appeal people can draw their own conclusions on how compelling it is.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2015)

so what was the appeal he had in 2012


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2015)

and lost


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 29, 2015)

Supposedly evidence by the pros that wasn't disclosed to the defence.


----------



## bemused (Jan 29, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> so what was the appeal he had in 2012



As I understand in 2012 he asked for leave to appeal and that was rejected, he appealed against that and three other judges upheld the original Judges decision not to grant leave to appeal. An appeal has never been heard, as four Judges agreed he didn't have grounds.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 23, 2015)

Evans being trolled now...

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/rapist-footballer-ched-evans-could-8692677



> Rapist footballer Ched Evans has been offered a route back into the game – with a side seven leagues below professional level.
> 
> The hope of a return to the game was dangled in front of the Wales international striker by Ashbrooke Belford House FC – who play in front of 100 fans at Silksworth Welfare Park in the Wearside Football League.
> 
> “We’ve been looking out for a centre forward and my assistant manager has come up with the idea because Ched is not doing anything,” said Asa...If garage boss Asa was in his position he would take up the offer.




Comedy gold:



> “It’s a good standard and the grounds have stands and seating areas,” manager Asa Dobbing said.
> 
> “The players get paid wages. We have had an injury crisis and we are getting to a cup final.”
> 
> “We’d like to set up a meeting,” Asa said. “It would be easier for me if he could come here.”


----------



## marty21 (Feb 23, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Evans being trolled now...
> 
> http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/rapist-footballer-ched-evans-could-8692677
> 
> ...


 Oh the glamour! He'll have every Sunday league, smoke at half time, hungover players clamouring for him in their side now.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 23, 2015)

How the mighty have fallen.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 24, 2015)

Following a successful petition they've dropped the offer


----------



## marty21 (Feb 24, 2015)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Following a successful petition they've dropped the offer


He's now reached the level of pub football


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 25, 2015)

marty21 said:


> He's now reached the level of pub football


And still might not get a team.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 26, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> hopefully in the final indignity he'll be boyed off by his local sunday league team


well, close enough.


----------



## hash tag (Mar 14, 2015)

Just when you thought this was all dead and buried, the issue just wont die. I see there is a chance that the rapists sister Kylie may be going in to big brother. Another reason bot to watch it.


----------



## Sue (Mar 14, 2015)

hash tag said:


> Just when you thought this was all dead and buried, the issue just wont die. I see there is a chance that the rapists sister Kylie may be going in to big brother. Another reason bot to watch it.


Wtaf?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 14, 2015)

Is big brother still going? Thought it died years ago 

Rapist's sister is a strange form of celebrity, any of Ian Huntley's relatives coming on as well?


----------



## bemused (Mar 14, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Is big brother still going? Thought it died years ago
> 
> Rapist's sister is a strange form of celebrity, any of Ian Huntley's relatives coming on as well?



It's human badger baiting.


----------



## belboid (Apr 30, 2015)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-32539346

No action to be taken over the defend ched evans website


----------



## Part 2 (Apr 30, 2015)

He's been spotted out in Manchester.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...sgraced-footballer-ched-evans-spotted-8979786


----------



## belboid (Oct 5, 2015)

going to appeal - Ched Evans' rape conviction goes to appeal court - BBC News


----------



## hash tag (Oct 5, 2015)

Hmmm, we could hope they send him down for another 10 years, but it ain't going to happen.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2015)

Depends on what the new evidence is, surely?


----------



## belboid (Oct 5, 2015)

there is zero chance of anything being added to his sentence


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2015)

belboid said:


> there is zero chance of anything being added to his sentence


Of course not. My point was that we should wait to learn what the new evidence is before hoping (or wishing) that Evans could be further punished, as hash tag seems to be keen on.


----------



## Dowie (Oct 5, 2015)

I can't see the new evidence doing much more than just throwing some doubt on the situation maybe making the conviction unsafe etc..

At best(for him) it might quash the conviction and still leave a lot of questions and doubt hanging over him. I mean unless the new evidence shows the victim has lied about her account then the whole scenario is still very dodgy.


----------



## D'wards (Oct 5, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Of course not. My point was that we should wait to learn what the new evidence is before hoping (or wishing) that Evans could be further punished, as hash tag seems to be keen on.


Quite. Because of of the politics surrounding the definition of rape and this case, it seems people from opposing viewpoints either want to bury him, support him regardless of any new evidence.

He's like society's test case


----------



## LiamO (Oct 5, 2015)

Dowie said:


> I can't see the new evidence doing much more than just throwing some doubt on the situation maybe making the conviction unsafe etc..
> 
> At best(for him) it might quash the conviction and still leave a lot of questions and doubt hanging over him. I mean unless the new evidence shows the victim has lied about her account then the whole scenario is still very dodgy.



We;ll have to wait and see - but I think it's safe to assume that there _is_ new evidence and it is considered substantial, otherwise he could whistle Dixie.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 5, 2015)

It's a new witness. I wonder how much they were paid


----------



## LiamO (Oct 5, 2015)

alternatively you could just wonder why they were not questioned by the Police at the time?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 5, 2015)

LiamO said:


> alternatively you could just wonder why they were not questioned by the Police at the time?


Or make an assumption that they weren't.


----------



## belboid (Oct 5, 2015)

trashpony said:


> It's a new witness.


where did you see that? Nowt on the sites I scanned through


----------



## trashpony (Oct 5, 2015)

belboid said:


> where did you see that? Nowt on the sites I scanned through


It was a reporter on PM (radio 4)


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2015)

trashpony said:


> It's a new witness. I wonder how much they were paid



Do you know it's a new witness, or is that speculation?


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2015)

trashpony said:


> It was a reporter on PM (radio 4)





Athos said:


> Do you know it's a new witness, or is that speculation?



Sorry, these crossed.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 5, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Or make an assumption that they weren't.



Or if they were, why was no statement taken? And if one was taken why wasn't it made available to the defence? etc etc.

Guess we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 5, 2015)

Not sure if this is a new witness or _expert witness_?  Can't remember the twists and turns but I think the possibility of both/either have been touched on in the thread at some point.


----------



## Batboy (Oct 6, 2015)

LiamO said:


> alternatively you could just wonder why they were not questioned by the Police at the time?



Police often fail to take statements from some witnesses.


----------



## dylanredefined (Oct 6, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Not sure if this is a new witness or _expert witness_?  Can't remember the twists and turns but I think the possibility of both/either have been touched on in the thread at some point.



 Think it has to be a real witness the radio said it needs to be something pretty good to get to appeal stage. Can't think what would clear him. He raped a girl who was almost unconscious from drink.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 6, 2015)

If the witness could provide evidence she wasn't nearly unconscious, and was not too drunk to consent, that could do it, but from my now hazy memory that's not likely to be the case, they'd have interviewed everyone at the hotel I would have thought, any earlier than that isn't adding anything.


----------



## LiamO (Oct 6, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Police often fail to take statements from some witnesses.



Yes. I know.


----------



## Sprocket. (Oct 6, 2015)

Batboy said:


> Police often fail to take statements from some witnesses.



In my experience when I as a witness was dismissed the defendants were two police officers. I think that may have had some influence!


----------



## Dowie (Oct 6, 2015)

BigTom said:


> If the witness could provide evidence she wasn't nearly unconscious, and was not too drunk to consent, that could do it, but from my now hazy memory that's not likely to be the case, they'd have interviewed everyone at the hotel I would have thought, any earlier than that isn't adding anything.



Well they'd spoken to the hotel night porter and taxi driver and they've got video footage of her coming into the hotel - surely any other new witnesses would only have seen her before those people? The only other witnesses at that time seem to be Ched and his buddy in the room + the two friends who apparently were filming through a window.

I wonder if it could be a witness to something the victim has said about the case at a later date if it is significant enough to warrant an appeal?


----------



## aylee (Oct 6, 2015)

It's rather pointless speculating .... all we know is that the CCRC has decided that there is evidence fit to be considered by the Court of Appeal.  It does not mean that his appeal is certain or even likely to succeed.  The appeal court regularly dismisses referrals made by the CCRC on the ground that the conviction remains safe, notwithstanding the matters raised in the referral.  Since he's served his sentence, it's not likely that the appeal hearing will take place all that quickly.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 11, 2015)

With the usual apologies for the source, the details of evan's appeal emerge.  Use of private investigators, focus on the woman's 'lifestyle', already leaking details that she had been banned from a bar.... but then claiming it wasn't 'character assassination'. Fucking scum.
Case drawn up to clear Ched Evans set to question victim's lifestyle


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 11, 2015)

Is 'lifestyle inconsistencies' basically slut shaming?


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Oct 11, 2015)

If there isn't more, it looks like the CCRC has bottled it. The other points - such as the suspects being taken to the police station in the same vehicle - would have been considered during the original (failed) appeal.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 11, 2015)

Because a women who once got banned from a club can't be raped ever. FACT.


----------



## fishfinger (Oct 11, 2015)

emanymton said:


> Because a women who once got banned from a club can't be raped ever. FACT.


She was obviously asking for it.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 11, 2015)

Wilf said:


> With the usual apologies for the source, the details of evan's appeal emerge.  Use of private investigators, focus on the woman's 'lifestyle', already leaking details that she had been banned from a bar.... but then claiming it wasn't 'character assassination'. Fucking scum.
> Case drawn up to clear Ched Evans set to question victim's lifestyle


Bizarrely (for the Mail)  'Ched is a rapist' is the theme of comments under the article.

And a witness who claims to have had a 'significant' conversation with the victim in a taxi. As I said earlier, I wonder how much his FIL paid the 'witness'


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 11, 2015)

Just reading through that bit were his mate texts him " I've got a bird" ...ugh. And then they film it. Without a shadow of a doubt that's psychopathic type behaviour. Just meat to them ...predators the fucking lot of them. Even if he was somehow actually innocent I'd still struggle to have any sympathy . He's scum .


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> Just reading through that bit were his mate texts him " I've got a bird" ...ugh. And then they film it. Without a shadow of a doubt that's psychopathic type behaviour. Just meat to them ...predators the fucking lot of them. Even if he was somehow actually innocent I'd still struggle to have any sympathy . He's scum .


he's not innocent. Its the very grounds of what constitutes rape at question in this case. And by my metric shagging a passed out drunk woman your mate text you to come and have a go in is rape. The behaviour of the Ched camp post verdict has been despicable. The woman changed name and moved abroad. The Ched camp named her online and said where she now was. Because he can afford the PI's to dig for this sort of thing. Utter scum. If he gets off it'll be a prime example of how poorly the courts treat rape victims.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 11, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> Just reading through that bit were his mate texts him " I've got a bird" ...ugh. And then they film it. Without a shadow of a doubt that's psychopathic type behaviour. Just meat to them ...predators the fucking lot of them. Even if he was somehow actually innocent I'd still struggle to have any sympathy . He's scum .



Fuck knows how the FiL rationalises it all to himself. There isn't really a logical explanation beyond going along with his daughter's wishes.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 11, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> he's not innocent. Its the very grounds of what constitutes rape at question in this case. And by my metric shagging a passed out drunk woman your mate text you to come and have a go in is rape. The behaviour of the Ched camp post verdict has been despicable. The woman changed name and moved abroad. The Ched camp named her online and said where she now was. Because he can afford the PI's to dig for this sort of thing. Utter scum. If he gets off it'll be a prime example of how poorly the courts treat rape victims.



If he gets off there's going to be a shitstorm.

E2a: conviction quashed rather.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 11, 2015)

Dp


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 11, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Fuck knows how the FiL rationalises it all to himself. There isn't really a logical explanation beyond going along with his daughter's wishes.



Meal ticket, match tickets, celeb status . Even his sister was on BB. The glamour of these bastard footballers is a huge thing to a lot of sad bastards.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 11, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> he's not innocent. Its the very grounds of what constitutes rape at question in this case. And by my metric shagging a passed out drunk woman your mate text you to come and have a go in is rape.


His contention was that she hadn't passed out. She didn't remember. He wasn't believed by the court, partly perhaps because he was clearly such a total shit and had accused her of lying, among other things. Plus the way they just left her afterwards. 

I agree about him being a total shit, though, regardless. Both him and his mate. Rich, arrogant young men with a massive sense of entitlement, and not the first footballers to display such behaviour. If that DM article is correct (big IF - it is the DM), there don't appear to be good grounds for a reversal. Rightly or wrongly, courts place great weight on believability of witnesses, and he wasn't believed. It is depressing that the victim's previous 'character' is still considered valid evidence for the defence in rape cases. High time this was changed.


----------



## Looby (Oct 11, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> Meal ticket, match tickets, celeb status . Even his sister was on BB. The glamour of these bastard footballers is a huge thing to a lot of sad bastards.


The FIL is really wealthy though, he's the one paying his legal fees etc


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 11, 2015)

So...you can not convict someone based on how horrible you find their character as you have to consider the evidence but you can possibly reverse a rape conviction purely based on the the victims (alleged) previous sexual behaviour ?

Am honestly lost for words at the blatant attitude of "it weren't proper rape" that is on display in this case.
The hypocrisy is endless


----------



## Wilf (Oct 11, 2015)

Various newspaper sites don't agree with my browser, but I got a couple of lines before it crashed. Gives an indication of how much trawling the private investigators have been doing.  Something like 'evidence of her lifestyle from at least 14 men and women who knew her'. Yuk:

New evidence revealed that rapist Ched Evans thinks will clear his name


----------



## Dowie (Oct 11, 2015)

comrade spurski said:


> So...you can not convict someone based on how horrible you find their character as you have to consider the evidence but you can possibly reverse a rape conviction purely based on the the victims (alleged) previous sexual behaviour ?



yeah that is very dodgy territory, I hope it is more than just pointing out that she'd had a lot of one night stands, it would be ridiculous if that was sufficient to reverse his conviction

there is that witness mentioned above who had 'a 'significant' conversation with the victim' - though it doesn't seem to be clear if that is a witness the police spoke to and chose to ignore at the time and the private detectives have now found out about or if that is a brand new witness who has only come forwards after some private detectives started asking around


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 11, 2015)

MAD-T-REX said:


> If there isn't more, it looks like the CCRC has bottled it.



I think it is this. 

High profile case and they didn't want to be the ones to call an end to it. Added to the very real fact that many people seem to be confused as to why his actions constitute rape in the first place, it would not surprise me to learn that some in the CCRC are confused too.

As to the FiL, I cannot begin to fathom his motives. If the boyfriend of one of my daughters was exposed as someone who trawls clubs looking for 'a bird' to share with his mates I'd deck the cunt. Clearly this night was not a one off either.


----------



## umop apisdn (Oct 11, 2015)

fishfinger said:


> She was obviously asking for it.



Isn't that basically his original defence?


----------



## fishfinger (Oct 11, 2015)

umop apisdn said:


> Isn't that basically his original defence?


Maybe, but with all the new "evidence" she definitely, really, actually, totally was asking for it.

</sarcasm>


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 11, 2015)

fishfinger said:


> Maybe, but with all the new "evidence" she definitely, really, actually, totally was asking for it.
> 
> </sarcasm>


It's a terrible thing in itself that you even had to make sure people knew you were being sarcastic. Even on here.


----------



## fishfinger (Oct 11, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> It's a terrible thing in itself that you even had to make sure people knew you were being sarcastic. Even on here.


Poe's law, innit


----------



## belboid (Oct 11, 2015)

wtf is an 'inconsistent lifestyle'??


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2015)

belboid said:


> wtf is an 'inconsistent lifestyle'??


a paragon of virtue and proffesional dignity when operating in normal life. A slag who deserved it on those times she went out and got wasted. As every fucker does.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> She didn't remember.



and thats rape right there. No one is that thick that they don't know. You put them to bed and thats it, she sleeps it off. Even when you are also smashed. There are rules.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 11, 2015)

I think I'm also a bit shocked that not only did ched's fiance stand by him, she's also now pregnant. He's a convicted rapist, why is she standing by him? 

And all this 'she was asking for it because she got drunk at a club' so-called evidence can't be anything near enough to warrant theconviction being overturned.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 11, 2015)

equationgirl said:


> He's a convicted rapist, why is she standing by him?
> .


Because she believes he's innocent?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 11, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Because she believes he's innocent?


Well, presumably, possibly. But even if his appeal succeeds, the question remains as to why she stood by him - given the way he behaved. Even without a rape conviction he's an utter sleazebag.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 11, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Because she believes he's innocent?


After having heard and seen even the publicly available evidence to believe there's anything worth defending here is pretty fucking appalling. I expect we're on the road to yet another of your_ don't moralise _posts though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 11, 2015)

Go fuck yourself ba, you self-righteous arse.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 11, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Because she believes he's innocent?


I suspect it's because she doesn't understand what rape is any more than he does


----------



## Looby (Oct 11, 2015)

And if she wants to stay in a relationship with him, it's easier to believe that he cheated on her than he's a rapist. People can convince themselves of a whole lot of stuff if they need to.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 11, 2015)

trashpony said:


> I suspect it's because she doesn't understand what rape is any more than he does


it does seem to be a reccuring theme that being twatted beyond belief is grounds for consent. I wonder how many blokes waking up after a night out with a very sore ringpiece and an aching jaw would take the view that 'oh dear I walked into it and I should know what men are like'.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 11, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> it does seem to be a reccuring theme that being twatted beyond belief is grounds for consent. I wonder how many blokes waking up after a night out with a very sore ringpiece and an aching jaw would take the view that 'oh dear I walked into it and I should know what men are like'.


Yes, it's the lie that 'being taken advantage of' is somehow just one of those things - and puts the onus on the person who is paralytic rather than the one who should have been seeking consent.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 11, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> it does seem to be a reccuring theme that being twatted beyond belief is grounds for consent. I wonder how many blokes waking up after a night out with a very sore ringpiece and an aching jaw would take the view that 'oh dear I walked into it and I should know what men are like'.




BANG!

You've nailed it DotCommunist


----------



## andysays (Oct 11, 2015)

Reading the stories in both the Mail and the Mirror, it appears that their main source for most of the information is someone from the Evans camp, so I would be very wary about accepting at face value anything there about exactly why the CCRC has made the decision it has. All we really know is that they've made the decision to let an appeal go ahead; the reasons will hopefully become clearer as the appeal progresses.

Those stories should be read on the basis that they are basically more PR and spin from the Evans camp (which the papers have chosen to print knowing full well that's what they are) rather than anything approaching a neutral reporting of the actual facts.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 11, 2015)

andysays said:


> Reading the stories in both the Mail and the Mirror, it appears that their main source for most of the information is someone from the Evans camp, so I would be very wary about accepting at face value anything there about exactly why the CCRC has made the decision it has. All we really know is that they've made the decision to let an appeal go ahead; the reasons will hopefully become clearer as the appeal progresses.
> 
> Those stories should be read on the basis that they are basically more PR and spin from the Evans camp (which the papers have chosen to print knowing full well that's what they are) rather than anything approaching a neutral reporting of the actual facts.


Yes, my pure guess is that the 'investigative journalist' they hired might have been the point of contact with the Mirror. Also, might be wrong without going back to the stories, but they were written with regard to w_hat was in the dossier_ sent to the CCRC (rather than what the CCRC have said/leaked).


----------



## toggle (Oct 12, 2015)

Wilf said:


> With the usual apologies for the source, the details of evan's appeal emerge.  Use of private investigators, focus on the woman's 'lifestyle', already leaking details that she had been banned from a bar.... but then claiming it wasn't 'character assassination'. Fucking scum.
> Case drawn up to clear Ched Evans set to question victim's lifestyle










comrade spurski said:


> So...you can not convict someone based on how horrible you find their character as you have to consider the evidence but you can possibly reverse a rape conviction purely based on the the victims (alleged) previous sexual behaviour ?
> 
> Am honestly lost for words at the blatant attitude of "it weren't proper rape" that is on display in this case.
> The hypocrisy is endless



inconsistencies in her lifestyle seems a lot like claims she isn't behaving now like a woman who was raped.

like omg, a proper victim will never go out agaihn, or be on her own, or wear a skirt. because although they all know nothing could be bad if she dosen't remember, she still should be so ashamed of being a victim and so risk averse that she's becoming a nun now, or something like that.

i do have words for this, but oyu will still be here next week if i start using them


----------



## toggle (Oct 12, 2015)

Dowie said:


> yeah that is very dodgy territory, I hope it is more than just pointing out that she'd had a lot of one night stands, it would be ridiculous if that was sufficient to reverse his conviction
> 
> there is that witness mentioned above who had 'a 'significant' conversation with the victim' - though it doesn't seem to be clear if that is a witness the police spoke to and chose to ignore at the time and the private detectives have now found out about or if that is a brand new witness who has only come forwards after some private detectives started asking around



considering the bullshit coming out of the Evans camp, it might nt even be that much. or it might not be enough to do anything to touch the conviction. but just to throw about enough crap that all the usual suspects want to whine about how all these horrible feminists are ruining his career and get someone to let him back on the field. the people he has actively encouraged to back him have form for tha6t kind of shit chucking


----------



## toggle (Oct 12, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Fuck knows how the FiL rationalises it all to himself. There isn't really a logical explanation beyond going along with his daughter's wishes.



go back through the bullshit in this thread. throw enough mud and people who want to believe women lie about this all the fucking time will find something that makes them believe this woman is lying. 

suppose you could always consider the routine of how he protects his daughter, and if women don't take responsibility to find a protector or keep themself safe, they deserve all they get. you'd better respect my women, i'll respect another bloke's women, women on their own make themselves fair game and deserve what they get. not exactly an unusual routine.


----------



## toggle (Oct 12, 2015)

Wilf said:


> Well, presumably, possibly. But even if his appeal succeeds, the question remains as to why she stood by him - given the way he behaved. Even without a rape conviction he's an utter sleazebag.



no one, however privilaged they may seem is entirely immune from getting involved with a complete arsehole and staying with them far too long. ref Nigella....


----------



## toggle (Oct 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> it does seem to be a reccuring theme that being twatted beyond belief is grounds for consent. I wonder how many blokes waking up after a night out with a very sore ringpiece and an aching jaw would take the view that 'oh dear I walked into it and I should know what men are like'.



but the menzs....


menz is different......



erm......



but there's a common myth that women don't know the difference between drunk sex and rape. or regretting sex and rape. i've done drunk sex, i've regretted sex. never called either rape. I called getting raped as rape. the myth is based on the idea that women don'[t have a fucking clue what they want, or what they have expereinced and need a nice sensible man to tell them to get over their over emotional selves and listen to his facts. it's infantalising women.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 12, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> . Clearly this night was not a one off either.



I'd agree with this wholeheartedly. They've definitely done this before, it's chilling to think of what they might have got away with previously be ause the entire predatory attitude behind it just stinks. And they'd have had loads of opportunities for that kind of behaviour given their celeb status . I doubt very much Evans was just turning up there on the off chance he might get a shag from a complete stranger who was already engaged in activity with his mate. He was only there a very short while and went straight at it. He was sure he was getting one, which indicates to me consent, or lack of it,just  wasn't part of the equation beforehand. that's a seriously bad mindset.
I've got to say I honestly don't give a fuck if this woman lied or not in this case...not from her perspective, i most certainly do care if someone wasraped...but purely from his. It's like with that other predator Strauss Kahn. I actually believe he was set up ...that time. But that he'd done it before on a number of occasions and gotten away with it. So worlds smallest violin.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 12, 2015)

exactly the hotel room both of him legging it down the fire escape.
   a total scumbag and the "new evidence" is apparently proof the woman was a slaggg.
 fuck off your a rapist ched with the self knowledge of a retarded potato

I'd have some fucking sympathy for him  if he admitted what he'd done was rape no ched thinks what he did was unacceptable as he's apologized but still believes he's not a rapist


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Because she believes he's innocent?


There's belief, and then there's deliberate self-delusion. Given the evidence arrayed against Evans, I suspect the latter.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 12, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Because she believes he's innocent?


 


ViolentPanda said:


> There's belief, and then there's deliberate self-delusion. Given the evidence arrayed against Evans, I suspect the latter.


There's a middle way, which I think is much more likely - _unconscious_ self-delusion.

We don't know anything about this woman (which is as it should be - I don't suppose Evans' father-in-law would approve of her life being laid out in the media the way he apparently feels is appropriate for Evans' victim), but she's in a relationship with Evans which presumably has some benefits to her.

It's a well known attribute of human behaviour that we will often filter out what we find uncomfortable or intolerable. Some people are better at recognising when they do that than others, and it will vary from situation to situation, but the kind of cognitive dissonance that goes with being (say) in love with someone and discovering some aspect of their nature that is deeply negative is not unusual, and nor is it rare for people to simply block out the bits they don't want to acknowledge.

In some ways, she could be another victim, just as the woman Evans raped was. Sure, in her case she may appear to have more choices, and we'd probably all like her to make certain of those, but subjectively, to her, there may be no choice.


----------



## toggle (Oct 12, 2015)

Casually Red said:


> I'd agree with this wholeheartedly. They've definitely done this before, it's chilling to think of what they might have got away with previously be ause the entire predatory attitude behind it just stinks. And they'd have had loads of opportunities for that kind of behaviour given their celeb status . I doubt very much Evans was just turning up there on the off chance he might get a shag from a complete stranger who was already engaged in activity with his mate. He was only there a very short while and went straight at it. He was sure he was getting one, which indicates to me consent, or lack of it,just  wasn't part of the equation beforehand. that's a seriously bad mindset.
> *I've got to say I honestly don't give a fuck if this woman lied or not in this case..*.not from her perspective, i most certainly do care if someone wasraped...but purely from his. It's like with that other predator Strauss Kahn. I actually believe he was set up ...that time. But that he'd done it before on a number of occasions and gotten away with it. So worlds smallest violin.



IMO, i reckon one of the reasons this case resulted in conviction was that it wasn't based on the woman's testimony. much harder to make a defence case about lying golddiggers/vindictive or regretful 'sluts' when the victim's testimony can be summed up as 'i dont remember'. says a lot about how women's testimony is viewed when it's probably been helpful to the case that there wasn't any.


----------



## existentialist (Oct 12, 2015)

toggle said:


> IMO, i reckon one of the reasons this case resulted in conviction was that it wasn't based on the woman's testimony. much harder to make a defence case about lying golddiggers/vindictive or regretful 'sluts' when the victim's testimony can be summed up as 'i dont remember'. says a lot about how women's testimony is viewed when it's probably been helpful to the case that there wasn't any.


Except that now they *do* want to make it all about her. This is the sort of case that should be a major turning point in the way we deal with sexual attitudes (and not just towards women - ANY form of sexual assault needs to be seen as serious and Just Not On). Sadly, I suspect that we still have some way to go.

So, in a much more non-constructive sense, I hope that Evans reaps the full extent of the Streisand Effect in return for putting himself in the public spotlight again as he attempts to besmirch his victim in order to clear himself.

And I sincerely hope that the football industry is savvy enough to make sure that they are not seen to be supporting, in any way, an unrepentant convicted rapist.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 12, 2015)

The new evidence rapist footballer Ched Evans hopes will clear his name



> Today we can reveal details of the new evidence which footballer Ched Evans thinks will help clear his name when his conviction for rape is referred back to the court of appeal.
> 
> A case file drawn up by private investigators includes testimony from at least 14 women and men who knew his victim....
> 
> ...



Will be interesting to hear what is given to the court. Dragging up her history to paint her as a 'slut', CCTV showing something, summing up etc., none of this detracts from the core issue of his actions on the night. 

Might be heard as soon as January they say.


----------



## toggle (Oct 12, 2015)

existentialist said:


> Except that now they *do* want to make it all about her. This is the sort of case that should be a major turning point in the way we deal with sexual attitudes (and not just towards women - ANY form of sexual assault needs to be seen as serious and Just Not On). Sadly, I suspect that we still have some way to go.
> 
> So, in a much more non-constructive sense, I hope that Evans reaps the full extent of the Streisand Effect in return for putting himself in the public spotlight again as he attempts to besmirch his victim in order to clear himself.
> 
> And I sincerely hope that the football industry is savvy enough to make sure that they are not seen to be supporting, in any way, an unrepentant convicted rapist.



he's acted the arsehole, encouraged ongoing abuse of his victim and my feeling is that this behavior has pushed a lot of people from a position of being neutral about the case because they didnt know the details, to believing that someone who has encouraged this trial by ordeal process is capable of rape. and i reckon he's too clueless to realize this and is going to continue to shoot himself in the leg


----------



## likesfish (Oct 12, 2015)

he's not deliberately evil

he's an idiot and genuinely believes he hasn't raped anyone which is very sad and rather scary


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 12, 2015)

likesfish said:


> he's not deliberately evil
> 
> he's an idiot and genuinely believes he hasn't raped anyone which is very sad and rather scary



I think he knows full well that his actions are 'out of order' and 'taking advantage'. He just doesn't believe that constitute rape. Which it blatantly does. Ched Evans is a rapist. He knows it in his heart of hearts, the world knows. The cunt even got out of his sentence early for reasons known only to.....brown envelopes


----------



## toggle (Oct 12, 2015)

likesfish said:


> he's not deliberately evil
> 
> he's an idiot and genuinely believes he hasn't raped anyone which is very sad and rather scary



i can comprehend how someone has internalised a message that says you can get away with  taking advantage under thise circumstances. it's not an uncommon mindset and is massively supported by a ot of common myths about what does and dosent constitute rape

when it's clear that the prosecution of the case wasn't driven by the victim, I find it a lot harder to comprehend the character assassination of her as anything other than vindictive.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 12, 2015)

I'd say shagging a drunk and incapable woman on the consent of your mate whilst getting other mates to film the encounter goes beyond being a bit of a cunt tbh. I never find the word 'evil' particularly helpful but fucking hell. It's a dark way to treat someone.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 12, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> I'd say shagging a drunk and incapable woman on the consent of your mate whilst getting other mates to film the encounter goes beyond being a bit of a cunt tbh. I never find the word 'evil' particularly helpful but fucking hell. It's a dark way to treat someone.


we (not me and you, the wider we) have had discussions on here about where feminism intersects (lol) with class politics and in this- and in other cases, like that IMF bloke who deffo never raped that woman right. There is a parralel in the way the woman was seen as a tool to be used. And the outraged reaction to being called on such behaviour. Its almost like theres a system or something...


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 12, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> we (not me and you, the wider we) have had discussions on here about where feminism intersects (lol) with class politics and in this- and in other cases, like that IMF bloke who deffo never raped that woman right. There is a parralel in the way the woman was seen as a tool to be used. And the outraged reaction to being called on such behaviour. Its almost like theres a system or something...


Yeah, like there's institutional sexism or something. That can't be right...wait....


----------



## toggle (Oct 12, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> I'd say shagging a drunk and incapable woman on the consent of your mate whilst getting other mates to film the encounter goes beyond being a bit of a cunt tbh. I never find the word 'evil' particularly helpful but fucking hell. It's a dark way to treat someone.



problem is that while I strongly believe that a great many men find that behavior utterly vile, there still a significant minority that are perfectly comfortable to equate lack of resistance with consent. or at least claim they do to exploit that idea of a grey area where women get confused about what happened, cause they aren't able to think without a man to help them.


----------



## belboid (Mar 2, 2016)

Ched Evans: Footballer's rape appeal date set - BBC News

Appeal on March 22


----------



## PursuedByBears (Mar 22, 2016)

Ched Evans' rape conviction under review after new evidence brought forward


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 22, 2016)

Oddly the proceedings cannot be reported on???


----------



## belboid (Mar 23, 2016)

Decision delayed til April - Ched Evans rape appeal decision delayed until April - BBC News


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 23, 2016)

belboid said:


> Decision delayed til April - Ched Evans rape appeal decision delayed until April - BBC News


I saw that.  guess everyone will have to wait until April for the decision.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 23, 2016)

This is very unusual: Prosecutors to seek retrial if Ched Evans wins appeal



> Prosecutors are to seek a retrial if former Sheffield United footballer Ched Evanswins an appeal against his conviction for raping a teenager, a court has heard.
> 
> Prosecutor Eleanor Laws QC told the court that when a judgment comes back, and if Evans is successful, the crown would seek a retrial.


----------



## Dowie (Mar 23, 2016)

belboid said:


> Decision delayed til April - Ched Evans rape appeal decision delayed until April - BBC News



Does that mean it could quite feasibly easily go either way? I mean if they thought it was an obvious decision presumably they'd have either rejected his appeal pretty quickly or quashed his conviction already?


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 23, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> This is very unusual: Prosecutors to seek retrial if Ched Evans wins appeal


I was under the impression that if the appeal was won then there would be a retrial,  as that's what the appeal panel would order. The appeal panel won't determine whether or not he is innocent, just whether or not the new evidence should have been introduced to the original trial, and if so, that there should be a retrial.

But it's been a while since I read about this stuff


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 23, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> I was under the impression that if the appeal was won then there would be a retrial,  as that's what the appeal panel would order. The appeal panel won't determine whether or not he is innocent, just whether or not the new evidence should have been introduced to the original trial, and if so, that there should be a retrial.
> 
> But it's been a while since I read about this stuff



Afaik this is the court of appeal, they will uphold the conviction, quash it or order a retrial. What has been said is that because he has served the custodial part of his sentence a retrial would not be ordered.

If that is correct it seems odd that the Crown would state that they'd go for a retrial in the event of a not guilty. But tbf I can't remember following a case at appeal such as this before, so don't know for sure, but does sound a bit squiffy.


----------



## TopCat (Mar 23, 2016)

New evidence apparently.


----------



## TopCat (Mar 23, 2016)

I on the whole loathe footballers.


----------



## equationgirl (Mar 23, 2016)

It will be interesting to find out what exactly this holy grail of evidence actually is.


----------



## RubyBlue (Mar 23, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> It will be interesting to find out what exactly this holy grail of evidence actually is.



It was reported earlier - before the reporting restrictions - it was based on FB messages from the woman involved, this is speculation though so we will find out in April.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 21, 2016)

Wins appeal, will face re-trial...


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

Wow. Wtf was that all about then????


----------



## dessiato (Apr 21, 2016)

He has won his appeal, going to retrial

Ched Evans wins rape conviction appeal - Ched Evans wins rape conviction appeal - BBC News


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

What happens if he's found guilty again?


----------



## likesfish (Apr 21, 2016)

What utter bullshit the "new evidence" is loads of statements saying his victim is a slag.

Doesn't change his behaviour on the night but if a woman is "easy" enough and you have access too enough cash you too can get away with rape


----------



## dessiato (Apr 21, 2016)

likesfish said:


> What utter bullshit the "new evidence" is loads of statements saying his victim is a slag.
> 
> Doesn't change his behaviour on the night but if a woman is "easy" enough and you have access too enough cash you too can get away with rape


Another interesting rape case is that of the soldiers who raped a female soldier. But that's for another thread.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 21, 2016)

"Details of the grounds of appeal can not be reported for legal reasons."

Still can't be reported


----------



## baffled (Apr 21, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> It will be interesting to find out what exactly this holy grail of evidence actually is.



According to the Independent he's had a freelance investigative journalist looking into it.

D-day for Ched Evans as Court of Appeal rules on rape conviction

Whether it goes beyond the Facebook/Twitter bollocks is anyone's guess until the new trial though.

Edit: Don Hale who worked on the Stephen Downing and Barry George cases amongst others.

Don Hale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> What happens if he's found guilty again?


He _should_ go to jail again for twice the time


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

likesfish said:


> ... the "new evidence" is loads of statements saying his victim is a slag.


I doubt that.


----------



## likesfish (Apr 21, 2016)

That involved the RMP the same org that used to hunt lesbians in the army .
   Prefects in schools have better investigation skills. They were the same org who having arrested a fuckwit for cannabis poession managed to lose the drugs out of the back of a helicopter.
  They then threw a fit when the Battalion and RUC refused to organise a search of 10 square miles of south armagh for "dangerous drugs" a small bad of weed
   They are crap at soldiering and even worse at any police work more complicated than grabbing drunks or traffic direction (their main wartime role). Any investigation they take part in is likely to be a complete disaster through poor skills and a reputation lower than the mets in Brixton.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I doubt that.



It is facebook posts his victim made and then deleted, these were dug up by some bloke in America after his guilty verdict. For some reason the details still cannot be reported though.


----------



## cyril_smear (Apr 21, 2016)

Why bother with a retrial? Hopefully if found not guilty he will donate any compensation  to a rape charity.

What happens to the young woman involved if he is found not guilty? I can imagine him using some big shot solicitor to push for a conviction against her. similar to what happened with woman who ended up taking her own life  after the cps took over a private prosecution against her.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It is facebook posts his victim made and then deleted, these were dug up by some bloke in America after his guilty verdict.


Yes, that's more plausible than posts supposedly calling her a slag.

All I can think of is that her posts on FB implied that the sex was consensual.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

cyril_smear said:


> Why bother with a retrial?


Eh?

How about, because he believes that he was not guilty of rape, feels that there is new evidence to support this, and doesn't want to be known as a rapist for the rest of his life?


> What happens to the young woman involved if he is found not guilty?


If it's shown that she made a false allegation which led to the destruction of his career and imprisonment, then she _should_ be prosecuted.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, that's more plausible than posts supposedly calling her a slag.
> 
> All I can think of is that her posts on FB implied that the sex was consensual.



That's kind of all it can be, but can't be reported on as it would prejudice the new trial. 




			
				Spymaster said:
			
		

> If it's shown that she made a false allegation which led to the destruction of his career and imprisonment, then she _should_ be prosecuted.



She made no allegation or complaint.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 21, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> She made no allegation or complaint.



How did he come to be arrested then?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> She made no allegation or complaint.


But she could have prevented the trial by confirming that the sex was consensual (if indeed it was).


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 21, 2016)

cyril_smear said:


> Why bother with a retrial? Hopefully if found not guilty he will donate any compensation  to a rape charity.
> 
> What happens to the young woman involved if he is found not guilty? I can imagine him using some big shot solicitor to push for a conviction against her. similar to what happened with woman who ended up taking her own life  after the cps took over a private prosecution against her.



He will be re-tried as the quashing of conviction was done on a legal technicality. Read the judge's statement: In summary, we have concluded that we must allow the appeal and that it is in the interests of justice to order a retrial.

His team are saying that proves beyond all doubt he is innocent. In reality it says no such thing.

His victim made no complaint, wish people would stop thinking that if someone beats a rape charge that the woman is guilty of something, that kind of thinking is fucked up.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 21, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> How did he come to be arrested then?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 21, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


>



Why that reply? I don't really know about the case, was there a witness to it? I'm asking a qestion no need to be a dick about it.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 21, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> "Details of the grounds of appeal can not be reported for legal reasons."
> 
> Still can't be reported


Because they are having a retrial and don't want newspaper coverage to prejudice future jurors. Duh!

You know nothing Bahnoff Strasse.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> But she could have prevented the trial by saying that the sex was consensual (if indeed it was).




She has claimed all along that she cannot remember anything. If her facebook posts contradict that and that the whole thing was some kind of stitch-up, it would seem odd that she did not go to the police and report the attack.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 21, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Why that reply? I don't really know about the case, was there a witness to it? I'm asking a qestion no need to be a dick about it.



There are 65 pages on the case right here, on this very thread. Try reading some of them.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 21, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Because they are having a retrial and don't want newspaper coverage to prejudice future jurors. Duh!
> 
> You know nothing Bahnoff Strasse.



#1950


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 21, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> There are 65 pages on the case right here, on this very thread. Try reading some of them.


Or you could've just provided a quick summary instead of being a dick about it but nevermind.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Why that reply? I don't really know about the case, was there a witness to it? I'm asking a qestion no need to be a dick about it.


The prosecution case was that she was too drunk to consent. 

Now, evidence has seemingly surfaced suggesting that that was not the case. She said she didn't remember. Curious stuff.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> If her facebook posts contradict that and that the whole thing was some kind of stitch-up, it would seem odd that she did not go to the police and report the attack.


Indeed.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The prosecution case was that she was too drunk to consent.
> 
> Now, evidence has seemingly surfaced suggesting that that was not the case. She said she didn't remember. Curious stuff.


Thank you, that's the sort of reply I was looking for.


----------



## cyril_smear (Apr 21, 2016)

Does there need to be a conviction before somebody can apply for compensation?

So, what are the possible outcomes of this retrial? Not guilty. Found guilty again and maybe giving six years of which he'd probably serve mostly on tag I assume as he's already done most of what you would serve of a six year sentence. is it possible to have his sentence reduced if found guilty again?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He will be re-tried as the quashing of conviction was done on a legal technicality.


There's not really any such thing as a _legal technicality_ in law. It's usually used to suggest that correct procedure wasn't followed but that's not the case here. 

The conviction was quashed because the new evidence cast doubt on its safety.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 21, 2016)

cyril_smear said:


> Does there need to be a conviction before somebody can apply for compensation?



He is back where he was before being convicted; charged with rape and awaiting trial. 

if he gets a not guilty compo doesn't necessarily follow; you get it if you are 100% pure as the driven innocent, he most certainly isn't and any not guilty will be technical/high standard of proof related.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 21, 2016)

I expect he wants his career back on track.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> There's not really any such thing as a _legal technicality_ in law. It's usually used to suggest that correct procedure wasn't followed but that's not the case here.
> 
> The conviction was quashed because the new evidence cast doubt on its safety.



It's a figure of speech. This quashing is not the law stating that he's innocent, indeed the CPS are stating that they feel there is a strong probability that he will be found guilty at his re-trial.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He is back where he was before being convicted; charged with rape and awaiting trial.


But in possession of some compelling new evidence that he didn't have before.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> But in possession of some compelling new evidence that he didn't have before.


what, he's got this evidence? why hasn't it been taken into the custody of the competent authority?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> ... the CPS are stating that they feel there is a strong probability that he will be found guilty at his re-trial.


Got a link? 

If they're saying that, they probably shouldn't.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It's a figure of speech. This quashing is not the law stating that he's innocent, indeed the CPS are stating that they feel there is a strong probability that he will be found guilty at his re-trial.


he's being prosecuted _ergo_ there is a probability, albeit of uncertain quantum, that he will be found guilty


----------



## cyril_smear (Apr 21, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> if he gets a not guilty compo doesn't necessarily follow; you get it if you are 100% pure as the driven innocent, he most certainly isn't and any not guilty will be technical/high standard of proof related.



No, what I meant was can a victim of a crime claim compensation even where no charges are brought. I'm sure I read that somewhere about certain crimes.

Would the young woman involved now have to pay back any compensation she may have received if evans is found not guilty this time.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 21, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> he's being prosecuted _ergo_ there is a probability, albeit of uncertain quantum, that he will be found guilty



Strong possibility, or else, by their own rules, the CPS cannot proceed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Strong possibility, or else, by their own rules, the CPS cannot proceed.


yeh but it is more a case of _they believe there is a strong probability_ than _there is a strong probability_


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 21, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh but it is more a case of _they believe there is a strong probability_ than _there is a strong probability_



Quite.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 21, 2016)

cyril_smear said:


> No, what I meant was can a victim of a crime claim compensation even where no charges are brought. I'm sure I read that somewhere about certain crimes.



AFAIK she hasn't had any from him.

But a victim can sue even on a not guilty, balance of probability for claims, vs. beyond all reasonable doubt for criminal conviction.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Quite.


Where's the CPS statement? Can't find anything.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Where's the CPS statement? Can't find anything.



The CPS is the body who is arranging the new trial, they can't do so unless they believe there is a strong probability of conviction. That's the standard they operate under. They said before today's verdict that if it were to be quashed that they would be going for another trial, this suggests that they knew the fresh evidence would be enough for the court of appeal to quash, but they feel that if it were presented in a full trial the guilty verdict would still be reached. It will be interesting to find out exactly what that fresh evidence is.


----------



## dessiato (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Eh?
> 
> How about, because he believes that he was not guilty of rape, feels that there is new evidence to support this, and doesn't want to be known as a rapist for the rest of his life?
> 
> If it's shown that she made a false allegation which led to the destruction of his career and imprisonment, then she _should_ be prosecuted.


IIRC she always said she was too drunk to remember whether she consented and she didn't make a complaint.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

She _did _report it to the police, btw. 


> The complainant said that her next memory was waking up in the hotel room at about 11.30am. She realised that she was alone. She was naked and had urinated in the bed. She had a headache and was confused. She reported the matter to the police.


Judgement from the 2012 appeal.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 21, 2016)

dessiato said:


> IIRC she always said she was too drunk to remember whether she consented and she didn't make a complaint.



I don't really want to wade through 65 pages to find this answer, yes that makes me lazy but I don't understand how he could've been charged with rape if there are no witnesses to it and the victim didn't make a complaint?

Edit: Spymaster answered while I was making this post.


----------



## emanymton (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> She _did _report it to the police, btw.
> 
> Judgement from the 2012 appeal.


I thought she just intended to report a missing handbag?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> She _did _report it to the police, btw.
> 
> Judgement from the 2012 appeal.



She didn't report the rape, she has maintained all along that she has no recollection of the evening. All the evidence comes from Evans, McDonald and the hotel porter.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> She didn't report the rape, she has maintained all along that she has no recollection of the evening. All the evidence comes from Evans, McDonald and the hotel porter.



Yeah, ok.

And they said she was fully awake and enjoying it, she said she couldn't remember. There was expert testimony at the 2012 appeal that she could have consented at the time but forgotten afterwards, but that wasn't accepted back then. So a lot of what one would obviously consider grounds for appeal has already been rejected in 2012. 

Need to see what the new evidence is but it sounds like it's clearly stronger than that.


----------



## toggle (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Eh?
> 
> How about, because he believes that he was not guilty of rape, feels that there is new evidence to support this, and doesn't want to be known as a rapist for the rest of his life?
> 
> If it's shown that she made a false allegation which led to the destruction of his career and imprisonment, then she _should_ be prosecuted.



why in the fuck is the first port of call when questioning a rape allegation or conviction to call for the victim to face prosecution for false allegation?

even in cases where the prosecution wasn't made on the grounds of a victim complaint. 

and in cases where it was, there are a thousand reasons for a not guilty verdict other than the complainant deliberately lied. 

provably false allegations are astoundingly rare. nd hen they do happen, they are more often made by someone else who believes they own the complainant's sexuality or are some other indicator of serious concerns for their welfare. the lying vindictive golddigger is incredibly rare. just reported on excessively if it ever does occour. and alleged in many oth3er cases. to protect rapists. and to protect society from the evils of women who think they own their own bodies.


----------



## toggle (Apr 21, 2016)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Or you could've just provided a quick summary instead of being a dick about it but nevermind.



that's because it's someone else's responsibility to educate you when you can't be arsed to google?


----------



## trashpony (Apr 21, 2016)

cyril_smear said:


> Does there need to be a conviction before somebody can apply for compensation?
> 
> So, what are the possible outcomes of this retrial? Not guilty. Found guilty again and maybe giving six years of which he'd probably serve mostly on tag I assume as he's already done most of what you would serve of a six year sentence. is it possible to have his sentence reduced if found guilty again?


He can't be given a higher sentence at a retrial. Whatever the outcome, he is unlikely to spend any more time inside.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 21, 2016)

he didn't even finish what he was given first time round, got out early


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

toggle said:


> why in the fuck is the first port of call when questioning a rape allegation or conviction to call for the victim to face prosecution for false allegation?
> .


That's not what I said is it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> That's not what I said is it?


you're new round here, aren't you?


----------



## toggle (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> That's not what I said is it?



yes it is. 

you jumped straight to suggesting that the prosecution was based on false allegation. considering approximately 1% of rapes result in conviction, that's a massive leap and promotes a myth that is hugely damaging to rape victims.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

toggle said:


> yes it is.
> 
> you jumped straight to suggesting that the prosecution was based on false allegation. considering approximately 1% of rapes result in conviction, that's a massive leap and promotes a myth that is hugely damaging to rape victims.



Bollocks.

What part of "if it is shown that..." do you not understand?

This, in the context of previous suggestions that the fresh evidence related to her postings on FB.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> That's not what I said is it?


have you any reasonable grounds for suspecting she may have made a false allegation?


----------



## D'wards (Apr 21, 2016)

She was never a "rape accuser" afaik - she reportede her handbag missing and after detailing what happened that night the polis thought "allo". So even if Evans is acquitted i would hope she wouldn't face any prosecution, or have any grief (but we know that this is literally impossible what with social media pricks)


----------



## trashpony (Apr 21, 2016)

My friend who is a barrister says she thinks that Evans' girlfriend's family will have funded some research/expert witness stuff into alcohol levels/effect on the brain/being conscious or not. 

And that it is not anything to do with the victim making a false allegation. Because, as Bahnhof Strasse has already pointed out, if that were the case, there wouldn't be a retrial.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> have you any reasonable grounds for suspecting she may have made a false allegation?


Spymaster


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> have you any reasonable grounds for suspecting she may have made a false allegation?



It seems _possible_ that she may have withheld evidence that may have led to an acquittal. 

She said she couldn't remember what happened. The prosecution convinced a jury that despite Evans' and McDonnell's testimonies to the contrary that that meant she was unable to consent. It's been said quite a few times that the fresh evidence relates to her posts on Facebook. 

The conviction was based on her not remembering giving consent and other witnesses saying that she was extremely drunk. 

If that is the case, what could she possibly have posted on FB that would have resulted in the conviction being quashed?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> It seems _possible_ that she may have withheld evidence that may have led to an acquittal.
> 
> She said she couldn't remember what happened. The prosecution convinced a jury that despite Evans' and McDonnell's testimonies to the contrary that that meant she was unable to consent. It's been said quite a few times that the fresh evidence relates to her posts on Facebook.
> 
> ...


thank you. no further questions.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

trashpony said:


> My friend who is a barrister says she thinks that Evans' girlfriend's family will have funded some research/expert witness stuff into alcohol levels/effect on the brain/being conscious or not.


But similar evidence to that had already been presented at the 2012 appeal and rejected.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> thank you. no further questions.


No attempt to answer the question then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No attempt to answer the question then?


no, prosecuting counsel don't answer questions from the witness.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> But similar evidence to that had already been presented at the 2012 appeal and rejected.


Indeed. But she thinks they've thrown money at that problem - funding additional research


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> no, prosecuting counsel don't answer questions from the witness.


The point being, if she posted on FB something along the lines of "had a great night out with Ched Evans and Clayton McDonald the other night", or similar, it kind of puts the cat amongst the pigeons, doesn't it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The point being, if she posted on FB something along the lines of "had a great night out with Ched Evans and Clayton McDonnell the other night", or similar, it kind of puts the cat amongst the pigeons, doesn't it?


i put it to you that your allegation she may have made a false allegation is, itself, false.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Indeed. But she thinks they've thrown money at that problem - funding additional research


Well I suppose we'll see. I'm sceptical that they'd have commissioned research so similar to expert analysis that had already been rejected, and have it accepted this time to a degree that the conviction is quashed. But I guess it's possible.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i put it to you that your allegation she may have made a false allegation is, itself, false.


Given that I have made no such allegation I think we can safely ignore you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> If it's shown that she made a false allegation


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

Quite.


----------



## aylee (Apr 21, 2016)

Guys, please be careful with what you post.  Evans' lawyers may well complain about social media speculation and comment if there is any application by them in light of the huge media splash, and trials can be derailed if there is comment which could be seen by jurors.

Here's an example of a case which was derailed due to social media, which no doubt caused huge additional stress to the defendants, the victim's relatives, and all involved.

British Broadcasting Corporation & Eight Other Media Organisations, R (on the application of) v F & D [2016] EWCA Crim 12 (11 February 2016)


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Apr 21, 2016)

toggle said:


> that's because it's someone else's responsibility to educate you when you can't be arsed to google?



Yes, in the same way it's your responsibility to pipe up about something that didn't concern you in the first place, something that's already been answered and something all concerned have moved on from


----------



## RubyBlue (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The point being, if she posted on FB something along the lines of "had a great night out with Ched Evans and Clayton McDonnell the other night", or similar, it kind of puts the cat amongst the pigeons, doesn't it?



If there was a message along those lines then the police, by not disclosing, would've proper stitched him up.  I feel sorry for the woman who didn't want it to go to trial and will now have to relive it all over again. Personally I don't think it should've gone to trial if she was unhappy about it in the first place.

Anyway it's all pure speculation at the moment so not worth going into.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

RubyBlue said:


> If there was a message along those lines then the police, by not disclosing, would've proper stitched him up.


Not if they didn't know about it.

And IF the fresh evidence _does_ regard her FB posts you have to wonder why they were deleted.

But yes. Speculation.


----------



## RubyBlue (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Not if they didn't know about it.
> .



Very true and if they did not know then you're right about the cats and pigeons but here I go speculating again - I'm off now


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 21, 2016)

I see Cunty Hopkins is on the vile wagon

KATIE HOPKINS: Lynch mob won't forgive Ched Evans for being successful


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> I see Cunty Hopkins is on the vile wagon
> 
> KATIE HOPKINS: Lynch mob won't forgive Ched Evans for being successful



She really is a fucking vile slug:


> And livid at those who once were friends and have no doubt distanced themselves from his and his cash faster than a they'd run from a hooker with herpes.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 21, 2016)

just filled with pure hate, or is that what im feeling about her...


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 21, 2016)

rape apologia for money. How deep she holds conviction for the bile she's payed to write doesn't really matter. In the end if you'll take money to think it up and publish then it was in you anyway. Littlejohn syndrome


----------



## existentialist (Apr 21, 2016)

toggle said:


> yes it is.
> 
> you jumped straight to suggesting that the prosecution was based on false allegation. considering approximately 1% of rapes result in conviction, that's a massive leap and promotes a myth that is hugely damaging to rape victims.


TBF, there was a big "if" in what Spymaster said, but I too thought it was sad that the discussion had moved so swiftly from the outcome of the appeal to the question of whether the victim was liable for prosecution. It's an inevitable question that's bound to get asked, but it could have waited - especially since we have absolutely no idea whether this new evidence implies that she was in any way deceiving anyone in the first place.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

existentialist said:


> TBF, there was a big "if" in what Spymaster said, but I too thought it was sad that the discussion had moved so swiftly from the outcome of the appeal to the question of whether the victim was liable for prosecution. It's an inevitable question that's bound to get asked, but it could have waited - especially since we have absolutely no idea whether this new evidence implies that she was in any way deceiving anyone in the first place.


Cheers.

If you look at posts #1946 to #1950 they put my comment into context.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Cheers.
> 
> If you look at posts #1946 to #1950 they put my comment into context.


this is urban, we don't need no stinking context


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> this is urban, we don't need no stinking context


Who needs context when we've got pitchforks!


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Who needs context when we've got pitchforks!


there's your new tagline


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Apr 21, 2016)

Does the thread title need editing for legal reasons?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 21, 2016)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Does the thread title need editing for legal reasons?




Ex-rapist ?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

Well legally speaking he's currently innocent. Hopkins is right about that.


----------



## Athos (Apr 21, 2016)

The conviction has been quashed, but he still faces prosecution. So, to ask if the victim will be prosecuted if he's acquitted is like asking that question of any victim in any forthcoming rape trial.  To my mind, that's a fairly shitty attitude, since an acquittal doesn't mean the victim was lying, and it can only have the effect of deterring victims of rape, who already face an overwhelming uphill struggle. And it's predicated on the vanishingly small number of malicious allegations, the prevalence and significance of which are disproportionately magnified by such comments.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

Athos said:


> The conviction has been quashed, but he still faces prosecution. So, to ask if the victim will be prosecuted if he's acquitted is like asking that question of any victim in any forthcoming rape trial.  To my mind, that's a fairly shitty attitude, since an acquittal doesn't mean the victim was lying, and it can only have the effect of deterring victims of rape, who already face an overwhelming uphill struggle. And it's predicated on the vanishingly small number of malicious allegations, the prevalence and significance of which are disproportionately magnified by such comments.


Yes. Except, once again, nobody has asked that.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well legally speaking he's currently innocent. Hopkins is right about that.



He is indeed. Doubt he'll be out to launch any legal action against u75, Daily Mail, Mirror etc. though...


----------



## Athos (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Yes. Except, once again, nobody has asked that.


Whether you meant to or not, that was implied by your comment, which flowed directly from the possibility of an acqittal to the possibility of her prosecution, whilst failing to recognise the myriad of far more likely explanations for this hypothetical 'not guilty' verdict.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

Athos said:


> Whether you meant to or not, that was implied by your comment, which flowed directly from the possibility of an acqittal to the possibility of her prosecution, whilst failing to recognise the myriad of far more likely explanations for this hypothetical 'not guilty' verdict.


Sorry but I disagree.

Bahnhoff stated quite specifically that it was about posts she made on Facebook, as had others. 

That being the case it's a perfectly reasonable supposition.


----------



## Athos (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Sorry but I disagree.
> 
> Bahnhoff stated quite specifically that it was about posts she made on Facebook, as had others.
> 
> That being the case it's a perfectly reasonable supposition.



You're speculating about someone else's speculation about a very, very unlikely consequence of a hypothetical acquittal!  Such musings have very little value, and are demonstrably harmful, as we know from women who tell of their unwillingness to report rape because of just this sort of thing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Sorry but I disagree.
> 
> Bahnhoff stated quite specifically that it was about posts she made on Facebook, as had others.
> 
> That being the case it's a perfectly reasonable supposition.


is it fuck


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well legally speaking he's currently considered innocent. Hopkins is right about that.


c4u


----------



## Athos (Apr 21, 2016)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Does the thread title need editing for legal reasons?



'Rapist (?) Ched Evans to be Released From Prison. '


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

Athos said:


> You're speculating about someone else's speculation about a very, very unlikely consequence of a hypothetical acquittal!  Such musings have very little value, and are demonstrably harmful, as we know from women who tell of their unwillingness to report rape because of just this sort of thing.


No. The assertion seemed authoritative, not speculative.

Read it.


----------



## Athos (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No. The assertion seemed authoritative, not speculative.
> 
> Read it.


And the evidence for it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2016)

Athos said:


> And the evidence for it?


in his imagination


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

Athos said:


> And the evidence for it?


.... is subject to confirmation.


----------



## RubyBlue (Apr 21, 2016)

If after a re-trial he was found not guilty because of the new evidence and that evidence had been found by the hiring of private investigators I would be very worried indeed - your average Joe can't afford such a luxury and if he was the average joe then he would've been stuck with a criminal record and known as a rapist. However, looking to far ahead.


----------



## Athos (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> .... is subject to confirmation.


So, none then. Like I said: speculation.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 21, 2016)

There's got to be a better way of doing all this. The law is an ass for sure.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 21, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> There's got to be a better way of doing all this. The law is an ass for sure.


How would you improve things?


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 21, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> How would you improve things?


Not a Scooby


----------



## 1927 (Apr 21, 2016)

RubyBlue said:


> If after a re-trial he was found not guilty because of the new evidence and that evidence had been found by the hiring of private investigators I would be very worried indeed - your average Joe can't afford such a luxury and if he was the average joe then he would've been stuck with a criminal record and known as a rapist. However, looking to far ahead.


So it's ok for him to be found guilty even though he could afford the truth to be discovered?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 21, 2016)

RubyBlue said:


> If after a re-trial he was found not guilty because of the new evidence and that evidence had been found by the hiring of private investigators I would be very worried indeed - your average Joe can't afford such a luxury and if he was the average joe then he would've been stuck with a criminal record and known as a rapist. However, looking to far ahead.



Would very much depend on what this fresh evidence turns out to be; guess it will prove to be a technical thing.

But if he gets a guilty, that'll be twice convicted of the same offence, which would be weird.


----------



## Athos (Apr 21, 2016)

Clearly, what's not ok is that those who cannot affort private detectives are denied the opportunity to aduce exculpatory evidence, given the inabilty/lack of motivation for the police to unearth it.  Further perpetuating a two tier 'justice' system.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 21, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Would very much depend on what this fresh evidence turns out to be; guess it will prove to be a technical thing.
> 
> But if he gets a guilty, that'll be twice convicted of the same offence, which would be weird.


finish the terms of his previous sentence as well then instead of sailing out early


----------



## Athos (Apr 21, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Would very much depend on what this fresh evidence turns out to be; guess it will prove to be a technical thing.
> 
> But if he gets a guilty, that'll be twice convicted of the same offence, which would be weird.



No it won't, since the first verdict has been quashed.


----------



## 1927 (Apr 21, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> finish the terms of his previous sentence as well then instead of sailing out early


If he was to be found guilty in a retrial he will just continue to serve the original sentence which will be served in licence. He won't do any more jail time.


----------



## Athos (Apr 21, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> finish the terms of his previous sentence as well then instead of sailing out early



That's standard: anyone with a determinate sentence of two or more years serves the first half in prison and the second half on license - it's not like he was treated any differently to other prisoners, in that respect (which is a different argument from the adequacy of sentences for rape, and the many other way the criminal justice system fails rape victims).


----------



## RubyBlue (Apr 21, 2016)

1927 said:


> So it's ok for him to be found guilty even though he could afford the truth to be discovered?



Wtf??


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2016)

RubyBlue said:


> Wtf??


have you not come across 1927 before?  He has form for this sort of shit


----------



## 1927 (Apr 21, 2016)

belboid said:


> have you not come across 1927 before?  He has form for this sort of shit


I was pointing out the fact that RubyBlue would be uneasy that he may have uncovered evidence by using PI's. If he can afford it what is wrong with that?


----------



## RubyBlue (Apr 21, 2016)

belboid said:


> have you not come across 1927 before?  He has form for this sort of shit



Ah, no I havent - cheers.


----------



## 1927 (Apr 21, 2016)

belboid said:


> have you not come across 1927 before?  He has form for this sort of shit


And why is my comment shit?


----------



## RubyBlue (Apr 21, 2016)

1927 said:


> I was pointing out the fact that RubyBlue would be uneasy that he may have uncovered evidence by using PI's. If he can afford it what is wrong with that?



You misread - look at Athos' post above - he got it.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

Athos said:


> Clearly, what's not ok is that those who cannot affort private detectives are denied the opportunity to aduce exculpatory evidence, given the inabilty/lack of motivation for the police to unearth it.  Further perpetuating a two tier 'justice' system.


Assuming, of course, that private investigation is involved. That too is speculation.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> finish the terms of his previous sentence as well then instead of sailing out early


He's done his time in accordance with any other con.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

Athos said:


> No it won't, since the first verdict has been quashed.


Are you aware of any other cases where a conviction's been quashed, retrial ordered, and the defendant convicted again?


----------



## Athos (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Assuming, of course, that private investigation is involved. That too is speculation.



No, the fact that that wealthy defendents employ private detectives (and others e.g. expert witnesses) is a matter of fact, not speculation.  I don't know whether it happened in this case, and neither stated nor implied that it did; I was making the more general point.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

1927 said:


> I was pointing out the fact that RubyBlue would be uneasy that he may have uncovered evidence by using PI's. If he can afford it what is wrong with that?


What about people who can't afford it?


----------



## jcsd (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Are you aware of any other cases where a conviction's been quashed, retrial ordered, and the defendant convicted again?


Yes it does happen.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

jcsd said:


> Yes it does happen.


Of course it does, but are you aware of a specific case that we can have a look at?


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Of course it does, but are you aware of a specific case that we can have a look at?


why do you need to look at anything?  what bearing would it have on this case?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

Athos said:


> I was making the more general point.


Yes. I overlooked that in my rush to get one over on you.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

belboid said:


> why do you need to look at anything?


Just out of personal interest.


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Just out of personal interest.


But what would the point be?  It would have no relevance to this case, or any other.


----------



## J Ed (Apr 21, 2016)

The views of so many people on this case are just fucking poison. The number of people who have told me that she was obviously lying because she was a 'slag', disgusting. I can't follow the case because it's so anger inducing.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

belboid said:


> But what would the point be?


To see what happened.


> It would have no relevance to this case, or any other.


Does that matter? 

I asked a lawyer the same question earlier and was told to Google it. I often find that posting questions here get more satisfactory results because someone either has an opinion, or does the Googling for me.


----------



## D'wards (Apr 21, 2016)

Athos said:


> That's standard: anyone with a determinate sentence of two or more years serves the first half in prison and the second half on license - it's not like he was treated any differently to other prisoners, in that respect (which is a different argument from the adequacy of sentences for rape, and the many other way the criminal justice system fails rape victims).


A lot of sex offenders get an extended licence - which can be up to life. Evans might be on licence for a few years past his original Sentence Expiry Date


----------



## 1927 (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> What about people who can't afford it?


i understand that, but you can't stop people who can afford it doing it.


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> To see what happened.
> 
> Does that matter?


Of course it matters. There would be no relevance to this case, so it has no relevance to this thread. You might as well ask about what the Queen is having for tea? 



> I asked a lawyer the same question earlier and was told to Google it. I often find that posting questions here get more satisfactory results because someone either has an opinion, or does the Googling for me.


Practise then, you might get better at it.


----------



## Athos (Apr 21, 2016)

D'wards said:


> A lot of sex offenders get an extended licence - which can be up to life. Evans might be on licence for a few years past his original Sentence Expiry Date



True, but my point was that the fact he only served half the sentence in prison is the norm.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

belboid said:


> Of course it matters. There would be no relevance to this case, so it has no relevance to this thread. You might as well ask about what the Queen is having for tea?


Don't be daft. The thread is as much a discussion of legal principle as it is this specific case.


> Practise then, you might get better at it.


Pfft.


----------



## Athos (Apr 21, 2016)

1927 said:


> But why would you be uneasy cos one person cleared his na
> 
> i understand that, but you can't stop people who can afford it doing it.



Just think about it for a moment.  As long as there's some semblence of equality before the law, even the rich and poweful have an interest (albeit self-interest) in seeing fair play.  The more freely an acquittal can (in practical terms) be bought, the less those with wealth i.e. the people with power over the system, are motivated to ensure that the standards of fairness apply equally to all.  Who wouldn't be uneasy about that?!


----------



## Athos (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Of course it does, but are you aware of a specific case that we can have a look at?



Wasn't that SAS bloke with the gun at home convicted after a retrial, following the original verdict being quashed.  And the bloke who murdered three generations of one family in Wales.  Can't recall the details, though - get googling!


----------



## D'wards (Apr 21, 2016)

Athos said:


> True, but my point was that the fact he only served half the sentence in prison is the norm.


Yeah - you have to be slightly more violent than Charles Bronson for them to keep you past your conditional release date these days


----------



## belboid (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Don't be daft. The thread is as much a discussion of legal principle as it is this specific case.


no it isn't, or if it is, it is about very specific legal principles related to rape.  Why would anyone want to muddy such a discussion with a complete derail onto a wholly separate subject?


----------



## Athos (Apr 21, 2016)

D'wards said:


> Yeah - you have to be slightly more violent than Charles Bronson for them to keep you past your conditional release date these days



Show them were tough on crime by doubling sentences. Ok.  Shit, the prisons are full. What we gonna do?  Let's let everyone out after half their sentence. Genius.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 21, 2016)

Athos said:


> That's standard: anyone with a determinate sentence of two or more years serves the first half in prison and the second half on license - it's not like he was treated any differently to other prisoners, in that respect (which is a different argument from the adequacy of sentences for rape, and the many other way the criminal justice system fails rape victims).


I know the half the time thing but I was under the impression for a sex crime you had to have accepted your guilt wheras evans never did. Must have got my wires crossed somewhere


----------



## Athos (Apr 21, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I know the half the time thing but I was under the impression for a sex crime you had to have accepted your guilt wheras evans never did. Must have got my wires crossed somewhere



Nah, I think you might be confusing it with indeterminate sentences, where there's no set release date, but a tarrif, after which time the parole board will consider it.  They will take into account whether you have shown remorse etc., which requires you to admit you did it.


----------



## 1927 (Apr 21, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I know the half the time thing but I was under the impression for a sex crime you had to have accepted your guilt wheras evans never did. Must have got my wires crossed somewhere


After today's decision maybe he was right in never accepting his guilt!


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

belboid said:


> Why would anyone want to muddy such a discussion with a complete derail onto a wholly separate subject?


I wasn't trying to "muddy" the discussion intentionally and don't think it's a derail really. I'm on the cusp of being prepared to let it go, or telling you to fuck right off.


----------



## Athos (Apr 21, 2016)

1927 said:


> After today's decision maybe he was right in never accepting his guilt!



He'd have got a third off his sentence; that'd mean two years inside, rather than three.  Regardless of whether you were guilty or not, I can understand why somone (particularly someone without kids) would gamble one year in prison against the rest of his life being ruined by the stigma of conviction and the end of his career.


----------



## RubyBlue (Apr 21, 2016)

1927 said:


> i understand that, but you can't stop people who can afford it doing it.



Is that what you misunderstood my post to mean?


----------



## trashpony (Apr 21, 2016)

1927 said:


> After today's decision maybe he was right in never accepting his guilt!


Oh do shut up.


----------



## 1927 (Apr 21, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Oh do shut up.


Why?

His conviction has been overturned! So right now in the eyes if the law he is innocent!


----------



## 1927 (Apr 21, 2016)

RubyBlue said:


> Is that what you misunderstood my post to mean?


No. I understand you think everyone should be able to exhaust all lines of enquiry!


----------



## trashpony (Apr 21, 2016)

1927 said:


> Why?
> 
> His conviction has been overturned! So right now in the eyes if the law he is innocent!


Yes! Right now! Although he's going to have another trial! So I suppose that the CPS thinks he's probably guilty! 

Is that enough exclamation marks?


----------



## 1927 (Apr 21, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Yes! Right now! Although he's going to have another trial! So I suppose that the CPS thinks he's probably guilty!
> 
> Is that enough exclamation marks?


It doesn't matter what the CPS think. It's the 12 members of the next jury that matter. Until they decide, he's an innocent man.


----------



## baffled (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Assuming, of course, that private investigation is involved. That too is speculation.



Might of been missed but I posted a link to an Independent piece that states Don Hale was employed early on to do investigative work for Evans.

D-day for Ched Evans as Court of Appeal rules on rape conviction

"There has been a less publicised side to the efforts to demonstrate justice. In the early days after Evans’s conviction, the freelance investigative journalist Don Hale was quietly sought out by the player’s family to begin some of the evidence-gathering that may prove significant on Thursday. It was typically thorough work by Hale. He worked in the same painstaking way to secure new witness statements when he secured a re-examination of the case of Stephen Downing, the 17-year-old council worker convicted in 1974 of the murder of a legal secretary at a graveyard in Bakewell, Derbyshire. Downing was acquitted by the Court of Appeal in 2002."

Hale also worked on the Barry George case.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 21, 2016)

1927 said:


> It doesn't matter what the CPS think. It's the 12 members of the next jury that matter. Until they decide, he's an innocent man.


Well it does inasmuch as they think they still have a case. So he's the accused rapist right now. And also he admits fucking a comatose woman because he's too fucking dim to understand what consent is. So he's a piece of scum who I wouldn't grace with my dog's shit. Still, each to their own. If you want to paint him as a wronged victim, you wouldn't be changing my opinion of you one iota.


----------



## 1927 (Apr 21, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Well it does inasmuch as they think they still have a case. So he's the accused rapist right now. And also he admits fucking a comatose woman because he's too fucking dim to understand what consent is. So he's a piece of scum who I wouldn't grace with my dog's shit. Still, each to their own. If you want to paint him as a wronged victim, you wouldn't be changing my opinion of you one iota.


I agree that he's a piece of shit. But he doesn't admit to shagging a comatose victim. Drunken consent is consent. She was still able to consent and evidently shout how much she enjoying it. If she had been comatose would agree he was a rapist, but that doesn't appear to be the case from the evidence!


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

trashpony said:


> So he's the accused rapist right now.


He's accused _of_ rape right now.


> And also he admits fucking a comatose woman ...


No. He's always claimed that she consented to oral and vaginal sex.

Come on! If he's a rapist I'd want his bollocks kicked-in.

But there's a _very fair chance that he isn't._


----------



## 1927 (Apr 21, 2016)

Bear in mind she never made an allegation of rape and the only evidence of intercourse was provided by Evans. How many rapists does anyone know of who provided ALL of the prosecution evidence!


----------



## Athos (Apr 21, 2016)

1927 said:


> ... the only evidence of intercourse was provided by Evans...



This is not true.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> There's got to be a better way of doing all this. The law is an ass for sure.



It's generally not the law but rather the lawyers who are asses, but in the case of sexual offences, the law is too piecemeal to deliver consistent results, and *is* therefore an ass. No Home Secretary that I can recall has undertaken a thorough review of laws around sexual offences, and it shows. 

For example, here new legislation has been introduced to facilitate evidence from vulnerable witnesses etc, some judges (because it's within their discretion) will veto screens and video evidence.
Some judges still allow forceful questioning about a victim's prior sexual history, even though it's long not been deemed a valid path evidentially, and serves mostly to prejudice jurors against victims.
Constant re-categorisation of various sex offences, in terms of the ambit of particular offences, and of sentencing guidelines, also have an effect, with judges having to rely on their clerks to keep them informed as to current practice.

It's all a big clusterfuck, and one that disproportionally affects women and children, but you won't find any Home Secretary willing to take on the issue because it's not a surefire vote winner.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 21, 2016)

1927 said:


> I agree that he's a piece of shit. But he doesn't admit to shagging a comatose victim. Drunken consent is consent. She was still able to consent and evidently shout how much she enjoying it. If she had been comatose would agree he was a rapist, but that doesn't appear to be the case from the evidence!



That's the very evidence that convicted him the first time you bellend. 

And when you're batting on the same side of 1927, you might want have a think about what you're saying Spymaster.


----------



## 1927 (Apr 21, 2016)

trashpony said:


> That's the very evidence that convicted him the first time you bellend.
> 
> And when you're batting on the same side of 1927, you might want have a think about what you're saying Spymaster.


You may like to look at the summing up in first trial and guidance given by judge which contradicted case law. I believe that is one of the areas used in appeal.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 21, 2016)

1927 said:


> You may like to look at the summing up in first trial and guidance given by judge which contradicted case law. I believe that is one of the areas used in appeal.


Except that his last appeal was turned down. Your determination to find him innocent is giving me the heebie jeebies frankly


----------



## Athos (Apr 21, 2016)

1927 said:


> You may like to look at the summing up in first trial and guidance given by judge which contradicted case law. I believe that is one of the areas used in appeal.



Are you claiming to know the basis of this appeal decision?


----------



## 1927 (Apr 21, 2016)

Athos said:


> Are you claiming to know the basis of this appeal decision?


I thought it was common knowledge that this was one area they were using in appeal.


----------



## LeslieB (Apr 21, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Except that his last appeal was turned down. Your determination to find him innocent is giving me the heebie jeebies frankly



I could say the same about people determined to find him guilty though.


----------



## Athos (Apr 21, 2016)

1927 said:


> I thought it was common knowledge that this was one area they were using in appeal.



Do you know whather the appeal was sucessful on this point?


----------



## 1927 (Apr 21, 2016)

Athos said:


> Do you know whather the appeal was sucessful on this point?


It was a basis of the appeal. That is what you asked me!


----------



## 1927 (Apr 21, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Except that his last appeal was turned down. Your determination to find him innocent is giving me the heebie jeebies frankly


New evidence has come to light since his last appeal. 

If his new trial finds him guilty I will accept he's a rapist. If he is found innocent will you accept he's not?


----------



## Athos (Apr 21, 2016)

1927 said:


> It was a basis of the appeal. That is what you asked me!



No, I specifically asked you about the basis of the appeal *decision*.

So, do you know whether he was he sucessful on this point, or not?


----------



## trashpony (Apr 21, 2016)

1927 said:


> New evidence has come to light since his last appeal.
> 
> If his new trial finds him guilty I will accept he's a rapist. If he is found innocent will you accept he's not?


Did you not accept he was a rapist last time he was convicted?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's generally not the law but rather the lawyers who are asses, but in the case of sexual offences, the law is too piecemeal to deliver consistent results, and *is* therefore an ass. No Home Secretary that I can recall has undertaken a thorough review of laws around sexual offences, and it shows.
> 
> For example, here new legislation has been introduced to facilitate evidence from vulnerable witnesses etc, some judges (because it's within their discretion) will veto screens and video evidence.
> Some judges still allow forceful questioning about a victim's prior sexual history, even though it's long not been deemed a valid path evidentially, and serves mostly to prejudice jurors against victims.
> ...


I liked that because it's you, but you have never advanced a better system. Neither has anyone else (except me) so you can be forgiven.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I liked that because it's you, but you have never advanced a better system. Neither has anyone else (except me) so you can be forgiven.



My "better system" is predicated on making a bonfire of current laws *and* lawmakers, and starting again from scratch with input from anyone who wants to voice an opinion. Majority rule.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 21, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Did you not accept he was a rapist last time he was convicted?


I did.

I wanted him flogged to within an inch of his life and then castrated and fed to pigs.

It seems as though I could have been wrong.

Can you not now accept that he may not be a rapist?


----------



## trashpony (Apr 21, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I did.
> 
> I wanted him flogged to within an inch of his life and then castrated and fed to pigs.
> 
> ...


Not really, no. I think a lot of men rape women when they don't think they have. Because they misunderstand what consent is. I'd argue that if a woman is so drunk that she pisses herself, she's not really giving consent, no matter what she's saying. And most rapes are about men willfully refusing to understand what consent is.


----------



## LeslieB (Apr 21, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Not really, no. I think a lot of men rape women when they don't think they have. Because they misunderstand what consent is. I'd argue that if a woman is so drunk that she pisses herself, she's not really giving consent, no matter what she's saying.


Ah come on. By that standard every woman who has had sex whilst drunk is a rape victim!


----------



## D'wards (Apr 21, 2016)

Some may call me a naif, but I do kind of believe the justice system in the UK and USA gets it right in the vast majority of cases. Even more so when there has been unsuccessful appeals. This is why I thought Evans was guilty. If he gets acquitted i'll probably think he isn't. I have been on jury duty and witnessed trials - they pore over every minutae of the case -  a lot more than folks on an internet forum (even U75).

This (and some background reading) is why I also think Steven Avery is guilty.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 21, 2016)

LeslieB said:


> Ah come on. By that standard every woman who has had sex whilst drunk is a rape victim!



You struggle with the difference between 'drunk' and 'so drunk she pissed herself'? 

Fucksake.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 21, 2016)

trashpony said:


> That's the very evidence that convicted him the first time you bellend.
> 
> And when you're batting on the same side of 1927, you might want have a think about what you're saying Spymaster.



It is not a question of who is standing with whom. It is a question of justice.

I have been following this case quite closely, and I agree with Spymaster. I would consider that there is a more than fair chance that he will be found not guilty.


----------



## editor (Apr 21, 2016)

*Thread title changed to be on the safe side.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 21, 2016)

He was released from prison ages ago....


----------



## toggle (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Bollocks.
> 
> What part of "if it is shown that..." do you not understand?
> 
> This, in the context of previous suggestions that the fresh evidence related to her postings on FB.



why did you feel it necessary to discuss false accusation in this context? let alone prosecution for false allegations.




there is no evidence to suggest that false allegations for rape are greater than any other crime. that's under 5% of those reported. and the majority of provable false allegations can be found to be the result of someone else making the complaint or the accuser having been victimized in other ways.

approximately 1% of rapes result in a conviction. 

therefore, a failure to secure a conviction is the likely result when someone is raped. it's still the likely result when a rape is reported, approximately 10% of cases are reported. 

the problem of rapists getting away with rape is looking a lot like 99,000 poer year compared to under 500 false allegations. 

a failure to convict a rapist is far far more likely to be a rapist getting away with it than a false allegation being found out. 

this is why i get fucking angry every time false allegation charges are raised as a result of a failure to convict or a successful appeal. 

because in all likelyhood, you are discussing prosecuting someone who was raped. and contributing to the myths that cause low conviction rates.


----------



## toggle (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Yes. Except, once again, nobody has asked that.



ther4e was absolutely no reason at all to raise false allegations of rape in this context. doing so is part of the problem that causes the low conviction rates.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

toggle said:


> ther4e was absolutely no reason at all to raise false allegations of rape in this context. doing so is part of the problem that causes the low conviction rates.


Sorry, toggle. I respect you very highlly.
But you have me wrong here. 

Im not fighting with you, so I'm unsubscribing from this thread.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 22, 2016)

LeslieB said:


> Ah come on. By that standard every woman who has had sex whilst drunk is a rape victim!


If she's extremely drunk, then I think that's pretty close to the truth. I would certainly be extremely cautious about having sex with someone that drunk whom I didn't have reasonable cause to believe was wanting to have sex with me (eg we were in an established relationship). And quite possibly not even then. 

But then I have this kink: I like my partners to be conscious, aware, and participating. There's probably some kind of category of porn for that


----------



## belboid (Apr 22, 2016)

Christ, the misogynist wankers have really come back out for this one again, havent they.  The usual bloody crowd, plus an idiot new one! 

At least it's useful to mark their cards, I suppose


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Apr 22, 2016)

I suppose it depends on what the new evidence is as to whether i accept it fully exonerates Evans or not. If it is facebook posts saying "great night with ched last night lol", then thats one thing, if its something less than that then i might not be so convinced. Ill withold judgement until i hear it though.


----------



## peterkro (Apr 22, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> You struggle with the difference between 'drunk' and 'so drunk she pissed herself'?
> 
> Fucksake.


If you ask anyone who has had a major alcohol problem they'll tell you pissing the bed is a major symptom of having blacked out.


----------



## Athos (Apr 22, 2016)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I suppose it depends on what the new evidence is as to whether i accept it fully exonerates Evans or not. If it is facebook posts saying "great night with ched last night lol", then thats one thing, if its something less than that then i might not be so convinced. Ill withold judgement until i hear it though.


If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. Pointless speculation.


----------



## rioted (Apr 22, 2016)

Athos said:


> If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. Pointless speculation.


Transphobic?


----------



## youngian (Apr 22, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I But then I have this kink: I like my partners to be conscious, aware, and participating. There's probably some kind of category of porn for that



Just reminded of a Viz tabloid spoof; "It's Bonking Britain! Seemingly normal couples using their bedrooms for sordid sex acts."


----------



## Athos (Apr 22, 2016)

rioted said:


> Transphobic?



Yeah, fair point. Hadn't really though about it in those terms, but I won't use that phrase again. Apologies for any offence.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 22, 2016)

LeslieB said:


> I could say the same about people determined to find him guilty though.


This isn't a mathematical equation with precisely balanced motivations on either side.  On one side, there's an important principle that the accused should get a fair trial and that all relevant evidence should be put before the court. But on the other there's what we know about rape in terms of the stats on reporting and convictions - and as a crime of power. That doesn't in itself lead to a valid presupposition that he must be guilty in this _specific_ case. However you then need to add in what we know about the events of the night, what was specifically reported in the first trial. We don't know what the new evidence is, but it's unlikely to wipe all of that out (of course we'll have to wait and see). But when you keep all that in view it's clearly nonsense to suggest those on either side of this argument have parallel motivations.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2016)

peterkro said:


> If you ask anyone who has had a major alcohol problem they'll tell you pissing the bed is a major symptom of having blacked out.




i never pissed the bed.  what was i doing wrong?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 22, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i never pissed the bed.  what was i doing wrong?



I've never pissed the bed either. But last night my m-i-l was round and fessed that Frau Bahn has a sister that was not known about (dad's daughter) and it all got animated. I woke this morning with no recollection of this revelation at all. None. Three bottles of red done that. I'm kicking wine in to touch as of RIGHT NOW.


----------



## RubyBlue (Apr 22, 2016)

I've never pissed the bed but I have been in total blackouts before with people not realising I am totally off my face - I come across as being a little drunk when in reality I'm out of it and have no recollection the following day.


----------



## cantsin (Apr 22, 2016)

slight variation, but the classic 'stumble out of bed in dead of night, go over to chair, try to lift imaginary toilet lid, piss all over clothes, go back to bed' routine was standard m.o. for me at one stage back in the day ( pre E ) - missus was always duly impressed.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> He was released from prison ages ago....



He was indeed, having served half of the sentence.

On release, he had two options. He could get on with his life as best he could, being known as a convicted rapist, or he could open a huge can of worms, and appeal. He choose to appeal, and his conviction was quashed as unsafe. The judge, not the CPS, ordered a re-trial. 

Once the second trial is over, then we will know whether or not he was guilty of rape.

Only one question you need to ask yourself; a guilty man, knowing he was guilty, and knowing that any subsequent re-trial was highly likely to find him so, would that man appeal? Knowing that if he had not appealed, the matter would gradually be forgotten, whereas the appeal has put him on the front pages again.

It is of course possible that Evan's hubris is of such a level, that he feels that because he says it, it is so. I doubt that though.

Time will tell, as always.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

rioted said:


> Transphobic?



Not really. A meme of great antiquity, meaning that if circumstances were different, so would the outcome.

Stop trying to find offence where none is intended.


----------



## belboid (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Only one question you need to ask yourself; a guilty man, knowing he was guilty, and knowing that any subsequent re-trial was highly likely to find him so, would that man appeal? Knowing that if he had not appealed, the matter would gradually be forgotten, whereas the appeal has put him on the front pages again.


that is one of the most ignorant and stupid comments I've ever read.  Of course he fucking would.  Not just because he was arrogant, but to keep his partner (and her rich father) onside, or maybe, as seemed obvious from everything he admitted to in the trial, because he doesn't understand what rape is.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> He was indeed, having served half of the sentence.
> 
> On release, he had two options. He could get on with his life as best he could, being known as a convicted rapist, or he could open a huge can of worms, and appeal. He choose to appeal, and his conviction was quashed as unsafe. The judge, not the CPS, ordered a re-trial.
> 
> ...


So, in your legal opinion, an appeal is -  in itself -  evidence for acquittal? 

Prat.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> He was indeed, having served half of the sentence.
> 
> On release, he had two options. He could get on with his life as best he could, being known as a convicted rapist, or he could open a huge can of worms, and appeal. He choose to appeal, and his conviction was quashed as unsafe. The judge, not the CPS, ordered a re-trial.
> 
> ...



There's the small matter of not getting his football career back unless exonerated. I'd say that was a pretty major motivator.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

cantsin said:


> slight variation, but the classic 'stumble out of bed in dead of night, go over to chair, try to lift imaginary toilet lid, piss all over clothes, go back to bed' routine was standard m.o. for me at one stage back in the day ( pre E ) - missus was always duly impressed.



One of the Scots Guards CSMs, went on the Queens Birthday Parade in 1979, with six stitches under his Bearskin. He got up, opened the wardrobe and started pissing over his wife's beautiful new dress. She hit him with a bedside lamp.  The reason I know is that I worked with his Mrs when I was doing a geriatric course at the Royal Hospital Chelsea. I got invited to the do in Chelsea Barracks that night, it was amazing. I was stilled pissed at 6 PM the following day, mind you, I didn't get to bed until 9 AM.  The champagne breakfast was catered for 100, but due to light-weight fallout, there were only 20 of us left.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

Magnus McGinty said:


> There's the small matter of not getting his football career back unless exonerated. I'd say that was a pretty major motivator.



His football career is finished, win or lose. Even if he is acquitted on re-trial, there isn't a club that will touch him. Sunderland's behaviour re Johnson has seen to that. Every club now wants to be squeaky clean re sex offenders.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> His football career is finished, win or lose. Even if he is acquitted on re-trial, there isn't a club that will touch him. Sunderland's behaviour re Johnson has seen to that. Every club now wants to be squeaky clean re sex offenders.



He had plenty of offers when he was released from prison. It was only after pressure from fans and sponsors that the offers were revoked. Of course, if he's exonerated nobody will have anything to pressure them over.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> His football career is finished, win or lose. Even if he is acquitted on re-trial, there isn't a club that will touch him. Sunderland's behaviour re Johnson has seen to that. Every club now wants to be squeaky clean re sex offenders.


If he's found not guilty he'll definitely get signed.


----------



## bluescreen (Apr 22, 2016)

1927 said:


> New evidence has come to light since his last appeal.
> 
> If his new trial finds him guilty I will accept he's a rapist. If he is found innocent will you accept he's not?


Fuck that. If he's found not guilty, all that's been found is that the prosecution haven't proved their case.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> Fuck that. If he's found not guilty, all that's been found is that the prosecution haven't proved their case.


Phwoar, that's outrageous!


----------



## bluescreen (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Phwoar, that's outrageous!


British justice, innit.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> British justice, innit.


Well no. Quite the opposite, tbh.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 22, 2016)

Well it's innocent until proven guilty _in the eyes of the law._

Being found not guilty not 100 percent accurate as to whether they are actually innocent or guilty.


----------



## bluescreen (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well no. Quite the opposite, tbh.


Meaning? It is always open to the judge to say that the accused leaves the dock without a stain on his character.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> Meaning?


Meaning a defendant found not guilty is absolutely entitled to be treated as such, ffs. 

Christ almighty.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> It is always open to the judge to say that the accused leaves the dock without a stain on his character.


So in cases where the judge hasn't said that and the defendant's been acquitted, there's some doubt?


----------



## bluescreen (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Meaning a defendant found not guilty is absolutely entitled to be treated as such, ffs.
> 
> Christ almighty.


Entitled in law. Can't disqualify him from a job or DBS check or anything. Doesn't stop people having an opinion about his character.


----------



## Athos (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> He was indeed, having served half of the sentence.
> 
> On release, he had two options. He could get on with his life as best he could, being known as a convicted rapist, or he could open a huge can of worms, and appeal. He choose to appeal, and his conviction was quashed as unsafe. The judge, not the CPS, ordered a re-trial.
> 
> ...



This is one of the most fatuous 'arguments' I have ever encountered. Quite telling the depths to which some people will stoop to excuse this scumbag.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> Entitled in law. Can't disqualify him from a job or DBS check or anything. Doesn't stop people having an opinion about his character.


Doesn't stop anyone having an opinion about his character, but it should inform their opinions as to his _guilt. 
_
Guilty people sometimes get acquitted but without knowing what evidence led to that acquittal any suggestion of guilt is woefully ignorant.


----------



## bluescreen (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Doesn't stop anyone having an opinion about his character, but it should inform their opinions as to his _guilt.
> _
> Guilty people sometimes get acquitted but without knowing what evidence led to that acquittal any suggestion of guilt is woefully ignorant.


I dunno about you, Spymaster, but what counts as guilt of rape under English law seems surprisingly technical. As for me, I have my own opinion about the character of a man who will fuck a woman so drunk she pisses herself.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> If he's found not guilty he'll definitely get signed.



You reckon?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> I dunno about you, Spymaster, but what counts as guilt of rape under English law seems surprisingly technical. As for me, I have my own opinion about the character of a man who will fuck a woman so drunk she pisses herself.



I don't think anyone on here is defending his character.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> As for me, I have my own opinion about the character of a man who will fuck a woman so drunk she pisses herself.


Well the law would probably agree with you on that unless she consented.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

Athos said:


> This is one of the most fatuous 'arguments' I have ever encountered. Quite telling the depths to which some people will stoop to excuse this scumbag.



No, absolutely not. What he did was absolutely appalling. The question is whether it was rape or not. His behaviour was disgusting by any measure, and I am certainly not an 'apologist' for him.

Edited to add:

Please stop conflating a view that he may be innocent, with support for him. Innocent or not, I am not a supporter. It is a reasonable consideration, that a man who has served the sentence, would continue to protest his innocence, because he is innocent. (In the eyes of the law at least.).

What is on trial is not his behaviour, which was disgraceful, but whether he raped the woman. I do think that even if he is cleared at the new trial, no club will touch him, because of his behaviour. If you were a manager, would you have complete faith that he would never do such a thing again on a pissed night out?


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> You reckon?


a club the other day had a self confessed nonce keep playing for them even though they knew. business is business apparently (adam johnson, sunderland)
Adam Johnson: Sunderland knew I kissed girl but asked me to continue playing


----------



## bluescreen (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> No, absolutely not. What he did was absolutely appalling. The question is whether it was rape or not. His behaviour was disgusting by any measure, and I am certainly not an 'apologist' for him.


Erm, perhaps there is a problem with the English law definition of rape?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> No, absolutely not. What he did was absolutely appalling. The question is whether it was rape or not. His behaviour was disgusting by any measure, and I am certainly not an 'apologist' for him.


Your argument that he is appealing so is probably innocent crosses the border into apologism.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> You reckon?


Absolutely. There are all sorts of ex-defendants playing or working for football clubs, never mind acquitted ones.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> Erm, perhaps there is a problem with the English law definition of rape?


How would you change it?


----------



## bluescreen (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Absolutely. There are all sorts of ex-offenders playing or working for football clubs, never mind acquitted ones.


Rehabilitation, what's not to like?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Absolutely. There are all sorts of ex-offenders playing or working for football clubs, never mind acquitted ones.


you're all over the fucking shop. acquitted offenders? really?


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 22, 2016)

I quite like the idea that a decision to appeal should be regarded as proof that someone is innocent.  This could save the courts a lot of time and a sack load of money.  Thinking about it we could also extend this to people who plead not guilty.  We could close most of the courts and prisons and turn the economy around.  Its brilliant blue sky thinking.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> you're all over the fucking shop. acquitted offenders? really?


Edited. Hardly a big deal.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Edited. Hardly a big deal.


tbh your posts on this thread fall below your usual high standard


----------



## bluescreen (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> How would you change it?


Good question. (Yes, I recognise it's rhetorical.) Bloody hard because of the he-said, she-said inevitability. I yield to more informed urbans like trashpony.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well the law would probably agree with you on that unless she consented.



That is the crux, isn't it? That very very fine line, as to whether the woman was actually in a fit state to give consent.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> Good question. (Yes, I recognise it's rhetorical.) Bloody hard because of the he-said, she-said inevitability. I yield to more informed urbans like trashpony.


that is not the urban way


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> That is the crux, isn't it? That very very fine line, as to whether the woman was actually in a fit state to give consent.


why do you believe it a very very fine line?


----------



## Athos (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> No, absolutely not. What he did was absolutely appalling. The question is whether it was rape or not. His behaviour was disgusting by any measure, and I am certainly not an 'apologist' for him.
> 
> Edited to add:
> 
> ...



I accept that he may be acquitted. But I'm not speculating that the fact of an appeal is evidence of innocence (which is absurd, by the way).


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> I quite like the idea that a decision to appeal should be regarded as proof that someone is innocent.  This could save the courts a lot of time and a sack load of money.  Thinking about it we could also extend this to people who plead not guilty.  We could close most of the courts and prisons and turn the economy around.  Its brilliant blue sky thinking.



What is in it for Evans? Other than having the stain that he is a rapist, just about removed from his character? I disagree with Spymaster, after the pelting that Sunderland got over Johnson, I do not think anyone will sign Evans.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> why do you believe it a very very fine line?


At what point is a woman too drunk to consent? What if a drunken woman _initiates_ sex? etc, etc


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> why do you believe it a very very fine line?



Because it is. Someone who is so drunk that they urinate on themselves is _probably_ not in a condition to give consent for sexual intercourse. It comes down to whether the second jury feel that consent could be given. It is a fine line in law, by any standards of decency, it is a no brainer, the woman is not in a state where consent can be given.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> At what point is a woman too drunk to consent? What if a drunken woman _initiates_ sex? etc, etc



Exactly. Morally it is easy, he is a fucking scumbag, legally...


----------



## Athos (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> That is the crux, isn't it? That very very fine line, as to whether the woman was actually in a fit state to give consent.



In what way is it a very, very fine line? If anything, the subjective element of the test already gives would-be rapists far too much leeway.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Because it is. Someone who is so drunk that they urinate on themselves is _probably_ not in a condition to give consent for sexual intercourse. It comes down to whether the second jury feel that consent could be given. It is a fine line in law, by any standards of decency, it is a no brainer, the woman is not in a state where consent can be given.


i'm not getting the sense you're confident in your answer.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Exactly. Morally it is easy, he is a fucking scumbag, legally...


Legally what?


----------



## Athos (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Because it is. Someone who is so drunk that they urinate on themselves is _probably_ not in a condition to give consent for sexual intercourse. It comes down to whether the second jury feel that consent could be given. It is a fine line in law, by any standards of decency, it is a no brainer, the woman is not in a state where consent can be given.


What about the subjective test, which requires a jury to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he did not have a reasonable belief that she had consented?


----------



## Athos (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> At what point is a woman too drunk to consent? What if a drunken woman _initiates_ sex? etc, etc


At (at least) the point a man doesn't reasonably believe there's consent he ought to feel the full weight of the law. And that's an important limb of the current test.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Exactly. Morally it is easy, he is a fucking scumbag, legally...


...you don't know what you're on about


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 22, 2016)

Athos said:


> At (at least) the point a man doesn't reasonably believe there's consent he ought to feel the full weight of the law. And that's an important limb of the current test.


yeah and as said on other page theres ften wilful misunderstanding- I struggle to believe someone doesn't know when someone is is too drunk to have sex with


----------



## bluescreen (Apr 22, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> yeah and as said on other page theres ften wilful misunderstanding- I struggle to believe someone doesn't know when someone is is too drunk to have sex with


Unless they are too drunk themselves to form an intelligent opinion?


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 22, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> Unless they are too drunk themselves to form an intelligent opinion?


is 'the flesh willing' for a man when at piss yerself paralytic stage? I doubt it.


----------



## bluescreen (Apr 22, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> is 'the flesh willing' for a man when at piss yerself paralytic stage? I doubt it.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

Athos said:


> At (at least) the point a man doesn't reasonably believe there's consent he ought to feel the full weight of the law. And that's an important limb of the current test.


Of course, but it's not always going to be clear in the case of drugs and booze, is it? You can be sure that if a woman says no, is asleep, or so drunk she clearly doesn't know what's going on, she's not consenting. But what if she's very drunk and says yes, or actively encourages it?


----------



## bimble (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> At what point is a woman too drunk to consent? What if a drunken woman _initiates_ sex? etc, etc


If this wasn't the anonymous internet i wouldn't dare but- exactly this. My feminist credentials crumble a bit in this particular area, or maybe I just don't quite follow why  all responsibility and agency is supposed to lie with the person who has a penis in such situations.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

Athos said:


> In what way is it a very, very fine line? If anything, the subjective element of the test already gives would-be rapists far too much leeway.



I don't formulate the law, I suggest you address your concerns to the Attorney General.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> ...you don't know what you're on about



You have posted nothing here, to indicate that you have more idea as to what you are on about...


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm not getting the sense you're confident in your answer.



If you are too dim to differentiate between the legality and the morality of the situation...


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> If you are too dim to differentiate between the legality and the morality of the situation...


..then i would be you


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> You have posted nothing here, to indicate that you have more idea as to what you are on about...


that's because i was asking you about your ideas, not presenting my own.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> If you are too dim to differentiate between the legality and the morality of the situation...


Where have you done this?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> yeah and as said on other page theres ften wilful misunderstanding- I struggle to believe someone doesn't know when someone is is too drunk to have sex with



Indeed. This is exactly what the new jury are going to have to decide. Even within marriage, there is no such thing as implied consent. If I were to have sex with a passed out Mrs Sas, it is rape.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> What is in it for Evans? Other than having the stain that he is a rapist, just about removed from his character?


 Do you remember Mrs Merton asking Debbie McGhee why she married the millionaire Paul Daniels?  This is another case where the answer is in the question.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

bimble said:


> If this wasn't the anonymous internet i wouldn't dare but- exactly this. My feminist credentials crumble a bit in this particular area, or maybe I just don't quite follow why  all responsibility and agency is supposed to lie with the person who has a penis in such situations.


Well yes, the extension of it is that drunken women are _unable_ to give consent, which is clearly ludicrous and probably a notion that many women would find offensive.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> that's because i was asking you about your ideas, not presenting my own.



Just as well really, you seem to have little to present.


----------



## Athos (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> I don't formulate the law, I suggest you address your concerns to the Attorney General.


No, but you were ill-informedly commenting on it.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Do you remember Mrs Merton asking Debbie McGhee why she married the millionaire Paul Daniels?  This is another case where the answer is in the question.



Do you honestly think that any club will sign him, even if he is found not guilty? I certainly don't, he is badly damaged goods, and would attract a lot of unwanted attention to any club that took him on.


----------



## Athos (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well yes, the extension of it is that drunken women are _unable_ to give consent, which is clearly ludicrous and probably a notion that many women would find offensive.


But that's specifically and explicitly not what the case law says. It very clearly days that drunk women can consent. This is a complete strawman.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

Athos said:


> No, but you were ill-informedly commenting on it.



Really? Please point out where.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Just as well really, you seem to have little to present.


you don't get this 'being asked about things' idea and how it differs from 'here's what i think'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Really? Please point out where.


_passim_


----------



## Athos (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Of course, but it's not always going to be clear in the case of drugs and booze, is it? You can be sure that if a woman says no, is asleep, or so drunk she clearly doesn't know what's going on, she's not consenting. But what if she's very drunk and says yes, or actively encourages it?


And, if it she doesn't consent but he reasonably believes she has, he's not guilty. He won't be convicted unless the jury is sure he had no reasonable belief of consent.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Do you honestly think that any club will sign him, even if he is found not guilty? I certainly don't, he is badly damaged goods, and would attract a lot of unwanted attention to any club that took him on.


At this point in the story I don't really give a shit as to whether he gets signed up. I was commenting on your daft idea that he had no obvious motivation for appealing if he was guilty.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

Athos said:


> But that's specifically and explicitly not what the case law says. It very clearly days that drunk women can consent. This is a complete strawman.


Well that's what I mean. It's not a strawman at all. At what point is someone too drunk to consent? Is there a test and if so what is it?


----------



## bimble (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well yes, the extension of it is that drunken women are unable to give consent, which is clearly ludicrous and probably a notion that many women would find offensive.



But this is the predominant view, for the past few years we've had more and more of it, spearheaded by the whole campus rape thing led by US universities, the phone apps designed to ensure that nobody takes you to court the morning after etc.
I've had a proper almost shouty argument about this recently with my very feminist sort of boyfriend, because I really don't get it: The idea that if say two equally drunk people have sex the woman is basically a victim and the man a criminal. But I can't comment on the case this thread is about because I know nothing about what actually happened.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

Athos said:


> And, if it she doesn't consent but he reasonably believes she has, he's not guilty. He won't be convicted unless the jury is sure he had no reasonable belief of consent.


And there we have it again. What constitutes a reasonable belief that someone's consenting in a case where they say they weren't?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

Athos said:


> But that's specifically and explicitly not what the case law says. It very clearly days that drunk women can consent. This is a complete strawman.



There is a difference between drunk and drunk and incapable. If someone is so drunk that they wet themselves, I think that any reasonable person would feel that informed consent cannot be given, on the grounds of incapacity. It is that line between drunk and incapable that is the crux of this case.

However, as I said earlier, I don't formulate the law. It is up to the judge to advise the jury.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2016)

bimble said:


> But this is the predominant view, for the past few years we've had more and more of it, spearheaded by the whole campus rape thing led by US universities, the phone apps designed to ensure that nobody takes you to court the morning after etc.
> I have had a proper almost shouty argument about this recently with my very feminist sort of boyfriend, because I really don't get it: The idea that if say two equally drunk young people have sex the woman is basically a victim and the man a criminal. But I can't comment on the case this thread is about because I know nothing about what actually happened.


do you mean 'sort of very feminist boyfriend' or 'he might be my boyfriend but then again he might not'?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> There is a difference between drunk and drunk and incapable. If someone is so drunk that they wet themselves, I think that any reasonable person would feel that informed consent cannot be given, on the grounds of incapacity. It is that line between drunk and incapable that is the crux of this case.
> 
> However, as I said earlier, I don't formulate the law. It is up to the judge to advise the jury.


the judge doesn't formulate the law either, that's done by parliament.


----------



## bimble (Apr 22, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> do you mean 'sort of very feminist boyfriend' or 'he might be my boyfriend but then again he might not'?


the latter


----------



## Athos (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well that's what I mean. It's not a strawman at all. At what point is someone too drunk to consent? Is there a test and if so what is it?


It doesn't really matter, since the point at which someone can be convicted is that at which a jury are sure he knew she hadn't consented. It's a very, very high bar for the prosecution.


----------



## belboid (Apr 22, 2016)

God, the scum really are back out in force today.  Fucking rape apologists, that is what they are pure and simple.  Deliberately trying to muddy waters, let an abuser of the hook and blaming the victim.


Spymaster said:


> At what point is a woman too drunk to consent? What if a drunken woman _initiates_ sex? etc, etc


Really is a case in point.  You (and Sasaferrato ) pretend to have followed the case 'closely' and yet you still come out with shite like this?  If you had actually followed the case, you would remember how and why Clayton McDonald got off.  It's pretty fucking clear.

Without knowing what the new evidence is, there is absolutely no reason to think Evans has a 'good' chance, or a 'vague' chance or a remote chance of getting off, it's all bullshit. And those of you pretending otherwise are talking reactionary shite. And doing so while/because you are ignoring the massive, _fucking humungous, _barriers facing women attempting to get a bit of justice after being raped.  Only 5.7% of _reported _rapes end in a conviction, and only 15% are even reported. But let's have most sympathy for the tiny number of blokes (especially famous ones!) who abuse women, but possibly not quite badly enough for it to count as rape.

Fuck them, and fuck their apologists.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

bimble said:


> But this is the predominant view, for the past few years we've had more and more of it, spearheaded by the whole campus rape thing led by US universities, the phone apps designed to ensure that nobody takes you to court the morning after etc.
> I've had a proper almost shouty argument about this recently with my very feminist sort of boyfriend, because I really don't get it: The idea that if say two equally drunk people have sex the woman is basically a victim and the man a criminal. But I can't comment on the case this thread is about because I know nothing about what actually happened.



I take your point. However, as it is the man who owns the invading organ, it is up to the man to ensure that before he pokes it in, he has consent to do so.


----------



## Athos (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> And there we have it again. What constitutes a reasonable belief that someone's consenting in a case where they say they weren't?


That's a question for the jury, on all the evidence.


----------



## BigTom (Apr 22, 2016)

bimble said:


> But this is the predominant view, for the past few years we've had more and more of it, spearheaded by the whole campus rape thing led by US universities, the phone apps designed to ensure that nobody takes you to court the morning after etc.
> I've had a proper almost shouty argument about this recently with my very feminist sort of boyfriend, because I really don't get it: *The idea that if say two equally drunk people have sex the woman is basically a victim and the man a criminal*. But I can't comment on the case this thread is about because I know nothing about what actually happened.



The law does not state this, and the Ched Evans case shows that it is not applied in that way. I can't remember the name of the other guy* who was acquitted but his acquittal shows that what you've said here is totally false, and would not happen in any case (not just this one, any case, the law is not framed as you are suggesting, not at all). There are two conditions that must be met: 1) the raped person must have been too drunk to be able to give consent. 2) It must be reasonable to believe that the accused would know that the raped person was not in a condition to give consent.

Two equally drunk people, neither will be considered to be in a state to know the other was not in a state to be able to give consent.

*e2a: Clayton McDonald, Belboid thinking the same as me but with a better memory


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

belboid said:


> God, the scum really are back out in force today.  Fucking rape apologists, that is what they are pure and simple.  Deliberately trying to muddy waters, let an abuser of the hook and blaming the victim.
> 
> Really is a case in point.  You (and Sasaferrato ) pretend to have followed the case 'closely' and yet you still come out with shite like this?  If you had actually followed the case, you would remember how and why Clayton McDonald got off.  It's pretty fucking clear.
> 
> ...



Try a cogent argument, rather than 'ad hom' abuse, then I will listen, rather than as now regarding you as being a bit of a tit.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

Athos said:


> That's a question for the jury, on all the evidence.



Yep. I wouldn't like to be on that jury.


----------



## bimble (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> I take your point. However, as it is the man who owns the invading organ, it is up to the man to ensure that before he pokes it in, he has consent to do so.


Ok. So the man is the active part of sex and the woman just a passive receptacle. Leaving that to one side... What if (and this is not about the case this thread is about just a general theoretical query) - what if the woman is drunk and in her drunkenness is enthusiastically consenting?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

Athos said:


> That's a question for the jury, on all the evidence.


Well exactly. The point being that it's sometimes going to be very, very, difficult.


----------



## Athos (Apr 22, 2016)

bimble said:


> Ok. So the man is the active part of sex and the woman just a passive receptacle. Leaving that to one side... What if (and this is not about the case this thread is about just a general theoretical query) - what if the woman is drunk and in her drunkenness is enthusiastically consenting?


If she's consenting it's not rape. This really isn't that difficult, unless you allow other agendas to deliberately muddy the waters.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

Athos said:


> It doesn't really matter, since the point at which someone can be convicted is that at which a jury are sure he knew she hadn't consented. It's a very, very high bar for the prosecution.


So change the standard of proof? 

How would you address that?


----------



## belboid (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Try a cogent argument, rather than 'ad hom' abuse, then I will listen, rather than as now regarding you as being a bit of a tit.


I dont give a shit if you 'listen' or not.  You're arguments are shit and incoherent


Sasaferrato said:


> Because it is. Someone who is so drunk that they urinate on themselves is _probably_ not in a condition to give consent for sexual intercourse. It comes down to whether the second jury feel that consent could be given. It is a fine line in law, by any standards of decency, it is a no brainer, the woman is not in a state where consent can be given.


Is rape apologism, no more no less. You can attempt to make as much fudge as you like, but that is what it is.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 22, 2016)

Adam Johnson sister 'applauds' Ched Evans rape conviction decision



> The sister of former Middlesbrough FC footballer Adam Johnson has 'applauded' news that Ched Evans' rape conviction has been quashed by the Court of Appeal.



Tidy.


----------



## BigTom (Apr 22, 2016)

bimble said:


> Ok. So the man is the active part of sex and the woman just a passive receptacle. Leaving that to one side... What if (and this is not about the case this thread is about just a general theoretical query) - what if the woman is drunk and in her drunkenness is enthusiastically consenting?



Is she too drunk to be able to give consent? If she is then you say no, I've done it before and I know others here have, don't care how enthusiastic she is, if she's in a proper state I'm not going to sleep with her... and I was thanked in the morning afterwards too.


----------



## bluescreen (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well that's what I mean. It's not a strawman at all. At what point is someone too drunk to consent? Is there a test and if so what is it?


Big difference here in how we might convict someone on incontrovertible evidence, and how we might conduct our own lives. Some victims of non-consensual sex fall into that gap.


----------



## Athos (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well exactly. The point being that it's sometimes going to be very, very, difficult.


No more so than establishing the _mens rea_ in lots of other cases; something juries do all the time. It's a red herring. The law in this area is stacked heavily in favour of defendants, and attempts to suggest that blokes are now walking some impossibly fine line are disingenuous.


----------



## Athos (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> So change the standard of proof?
> 
> How would you address that?


No. Just stop pretending that the law is too unclear/marginal for men to abide by.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

Athos said:


> ... attempts to suggest that blokes are now walking some impossibly fine line are disingenuous.


That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm suggesting the _jury_ will be in some cases where drink or drugs are involved. .


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

Athos said:


> No. Just stop pretending that the law is too unclear/marginal for men to abide by.


You've misunderstood. See above.


----------



## bimble (Apr 22, 2016)

BigTom said:


> There are two conditions that must be met: 1) the raped person must have been too drunk to be able to give consent. 2) It must be reasonable to believe that the accused would know that the raped person was not in a condition to give consent.
> Two equally drunk people, neither will be considered to be in a state to know the other was not in a state to be able to give consent.



You make it sound all quite clear and easy to determine. I would like to think that you're right. So..  are there authorised drunkenness scales which juries use to determine where the two parties were at during the disputed event?
It's probably not as simple as you are suggesting really, is it? I mean, "I'd had 4 pints so I can't be held responsible for taking her drunken enthusiasm at face value", would that stand up as a defence?
I think this stuff is important, not for the sake of famous footballers but in relation to ordinary young people, a significant proportion of whom have their first sexual encounters whilst not completely sober?


----------



## Athos (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm suggesting the _jury_ will be in some cases where drink or drugs are involved. .


Not that fine; they must be sure beyond  reasonable doubt!


----------



## belboid (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm suggesting the _jury_ will be in some cases where drink or drugs are involved. .


And?  Should we just drop cases where d&d are involved then?  Or should judges give absolutely clear instruction as to how and when such issues are relevant?  As a close follower of the case (and rape cases in general, no doubt), you will be well aware of how judges directions are often so appalling as to stress how a victim danced with the defendant, or accepted a drink off him, or wore _risque _clothing, or some other such bullshit. have one drink and you will often blow any chance of conviction, and THAT is the real fucking tragedy.


----------



## bluescreen (Apr 22, 2016)

belboid said:


> And?  Should we just drop cases where d&d are involved then?  Or should judges give absolutely clear instruction as to how and when such issues are relevant?  As a close follower of the case (and rape cases in general, no doubt), you will be well aware of how judges directions are often so appalling as to stress how a victim danced with the defendant, or accepted a drink off him, or wore _risque _clothing, or some other such bullshit. have one drink and you will often blow any chance of conviction, and THAT is the real fucking tragedy.


Do you reckon the problem is more with the judges than the law itself, or is the problem with both? I'm assuming there is a problem - it seems bloody obvious tbh.


----------



## belboid (Apr 22, 2016)

bimble said:


> You make it sound all quite clear and easy to determine, and I would like to think that you're right. So..  are there authorised drunkenness scales which juries use to determine where the two parties were at during the disputed event?
> It's probably not as simple as you are suggesting really, is it? I mean, "I'd had 4 pints so I can't be held responsible for taking her drunken enthusiasm at face value", would that stand up as a defence?
> I think this stuff is important, not in terms of famous footballers but ordinary young people, a significant proportion of whom have their first sexual encounters whilst not completely sober?


If you cant stand up, if you are passing out pissed, and if the other person can see that is happening, then that person can see you are in no position to consent. If the othe person (as McDonald did) got pissed with you, and you agreed then to have sex earlier, then they might think they still had an agreement to have sex, and not be guilty of rape. Astoundingly.  The real question here should be how McDonald didn't get found guilty, not how Evans might have been harshly treated.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well exactly. The point being that it's sometimes going to be very, very, difficult.


yeh it's going to be beyond the wit of the person at the time and will clearly have to be delegated to a jury after tears all round


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 22, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Adam Johnson sister 'applauds' Ched Evans rape conviction decision
> 
> 
> 
> Tidy.


is that enough people now to qualify as a 'ring'?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I did.
> 
> I wanted him flogged to within an inch of his life and then castrated and fed to pigs.
> 
> It seems as though I could have been wrong.



Which is why people ridicule your lust for the death penalty.


----------



## belboid (Apr 22, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> Do you reckon the problem is more with the judges than the law itself, or is the problem with both? I'm assuming there is a problem - it seems bloody obvious tbh.


What's 0.057*0.15...not very much is it.  Which means there surely is a pretty bloody significant problem.

The law has got better over the last twenty/thirty years, as has law enforcement.  The latter are probably a bigger problem still now, imo. And 'wider society in general' - I dont like using the phrase 'rape culture', but it isn't a million miles from the truth - is probably an even bigger problem still.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 22, 2016)

LeslieB said:


> Ah come on. By that standard every woman who has had sex whilst drunk is a rape victim!



There's a massive distinction between "inebriated" and "so drunk you lose consciousness and continence".


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

belboid said:


> If the othe person (as McDonald did) got pissed with you, and you agreed then to have sex earlier, then they might think they still had an agreement to have sex, and not be guilty of rape.


McDonald did not get drunk with her.

He knew her, they were friends, but she was already well pissed when they met that evening.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> It is not a question of who is standing with whom. It is a question of justice.
> 
> I have been following this case quite closely, and I agree with Spymaster. I would consider that there is a more than fair chance that he will be found not guilty.



The odds are roughly evens. The CPS won't bring (or re-bring) charges if they reckon there isn't at least a 50% chance of winning, and the Court of Appeals won't find for a re-trial unless they see the defendant as having at least a 50% chance of winning.

That's on law. Factor in the jury, and the legal odds can fly out of the window.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> I don't formulate the law, I suggest you address your concerns to the Attorney General.


Who doesn't formulate law.


----------



## peterkro (Apr 22, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i never pissed the bed.  what was i doing wrong?


Neither have I and I'm guessing it's because we haven't actually blacked out as opposed to passed out.I have done rehab however and as you can imagine a certain amount of boasting goes on,them "have you ever pissed the bed" me "no" them "well you are not a real alcoholic then,me "??? I don't have wet brain either but I do have an alcohol problem".This page has a section on blacking out (don't know how legit just a page at random):
Alcohol in the Body - liver - brain - fetal alcohol syndrome - hangover
also the PDF on alcohol blackouts and crime linked underneath is worth a read.
One thing I'm pretty certain about is that you can't have consensual sex in that state.
The pissing in drawers,wardrobes and on the floor thing is quite common and is more to do with sleepwalking rather than blacking out.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2016)

bimble said:


> You make it sound all quite clear and easy to determine. I would like to think that you're right. So..  are there authorised drunkenness scales which juries use to determine where the two parties were at during the disputed event?
> It's probably not as simple as you are suggesting really, is it? I mean, "I'd had 4 pints so I can't be held responsible for taking her drunken enthusiasm at face value", would that stand up as a defence?
> I think this stuff is important, not for the sake of famous footballers but in relation to ordinary young people, a significant proportion of whom have their first sexual encounters whilst not completely sober?


It's almost as if this thread and the patient explanation of what constitutes rape and ability to consent never happened. Talking _theoretically _at least.


----------



## bluescreen (Apr 22, 2016)

belboid said:


> What's 0.057*0.15...not very much is it.  Which means there surely is a pretty bloody significant problem.
> 
> The law has got better over the last twenty/thirty years, as has law enforcement.  The latter are probably a bigger problem still now, imo. And 'wider society in general' - I dont like using the phrase 'rape culture', but it isn't a million miles from the truth - is probably an even bigger problem still.


No question it's got better. No one I knew at university in the 70s wanted to report rape if they weren't a virgin. Back then, the argument seemed to be that if you had sex outside marriage at all, you'd be willing to have sex with anyone except perhaps someone who leapt out of the bushes brandishing a knife. The police generally deal with it better now, one thing Ian Blair deserves credit for. (Yeah, I know.) But there is still very prejudicial cross-examining and awful judges who allow that.


----------



## belboid (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> McDonald did not get drunk with her.
> 
> He knew her, they were friends, but she was already pissed when they met that evening.


Not true.  No evidence they were friends, he picked her up, they had _more_ drink.


----------



## Athos (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> McDonald did not get drunk with her.
> 
> He knew her, they were friends, but she was already pissed when they met that evening.



The jury can only have inferred that, because she'd gone to the room with him etc., there was nothing to gainsay (beyond reasonable doubt) his evidence that he believed she'd consented, even though, at the time of the sex, they found she hadn't actually consented, because she lacked the capacity so to do by virtue of her intoxication. And that they didn't believe that Evans had a reasonable belief that she'd conserned to sex with him - not unreasonably in the circumstances as they've been reported.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2016)

peterkro said:


> Neither have I and I'm guessing it's because we haven't actually blacked out as opposed to passed out.I have done rehab however and as you can imagine a certain amount of boasting goes on,them "have you ever pissed the bed" me "no" them "well you are not a real alcoholic then,me "??? I don't have wet brain either but I do have an alcohol problem".This page has a section on blacking out (don't know how legit just a page at random):
> Alcohol in the Body - liver - brain - fetal alcohol syndrome - hangover
> also the PDF on alcohol blackouts and crime linked underneath is worth a read.
> One thing I'm pretty certain about is that you can't have consensual sex in that state.
> The pissing in drawers,wardrobes and on the floor thing is quite common and is more to do with sleepwalking rather than blacking out.


mate believe me i've blacked out
i have also had consensual sex i cannot recall: or at least i couldn't recall it but the other, less drunken, partner had some recollection.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

belboid said:


> Not true.  No evidence they were friends, he picked her up, they had _more_ drink.


Why do you think this? 

Where did you get it from?


----------



## Athos (Apr 22, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> The odds are roughly evens. The CPS won't bring (or re-bring) charges if they reckon there isn't at least a 50% chance of winning, and the Court of Appeals won't find for a re-trial unless they see the defendant as having at least a 50% chance of winning.
> 
> That's on law. Factor in the jury, and the legal odds can fly out of the window.


I'm not sure that's the test the Court of Appeal apply.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Why do you think this?
> 
> Where did you get it from?


orang utan no doubt


----------



## belboid (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Why do you think this?
> 
> Where did you get it from?


Having followed the case. None of which has stated the victim was a friend of CM.

Where do you get your claim from?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Why do you think this?
> 
> Where did you get it from?


How about posters go back and refresh their memory before posting further? This is going to be a joke otherwise.


----------



## peterkro (Apr 22, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> mate believe me i've blacked out
> i have also had consensual sex i cannot recall: or at least i couldn't recall it but the other, less drunken, partner had some recollection.


Fairy muff,although I don't think memory loss and having sex you can't remember is necessarily blacking out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2016)

peterkro said:


> Fairy muff,although I don't think memory loss and having sex you can't remember is necessarily blacking out.


blacking out takes many forms and some of it is better than other bits: i've also woken up in a bed full of bloodstains, and that, my friend, is an unpleasant experience perhaps especially when it's all your own blood.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

belboid said:


> Having followed the case. None of which has stated the victim was a friend of CM.
> 
> Where do you get your claim from?


The crime line case notes on the 2012 appeal attempt. They may have drink more but she was already utterly fucked when she met McDonald.

McDonald had been on the piss with Evans and others, not her. He got separated from the group and bumped into her when she was already shit faced.


----------



## peterkro (Apr 22, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> blacking out takes many forms and some of it is better than other bits: i've also woken up in a bed full of bloodstains, and that, my friend, is an unpleasant experience perhaps especially when it's all your own blood.


Ye s it's all a bit unclear as far as I can see the difference with a "black out" is that the memory loss is irreversible which is different from the usual "I was so pissed I can't remember what I did.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The crime line case notes on the 2012 appeal attempt. They may have drink more but she was already utterly fucked when she met McDonald.
> 
> McDonald had been on the piss with Evans and others, not her. He got separated from the group and bumped into her when she was already shit faced.


have you had a couple?


----------



## BigTom (Apr 22, 2016)

bimble said:


> You make it sound all quite clear and easy to determine. I would like to think that you're right. So..  are there authorised drunkenness scales which juries use to determine where the two parties were at during the disputed event?
> It's probably not as simple as you are suggesting really, is it? I mean, "I'd had 4 pints so I can't be held responsible for taking her drunken enthusiasm at face value", would that stand up as a defence?
> I think this stuff is important, not for the sake of famous footballers but in relation to ordinary young people, a significant proportion of whom have their first sexual encounters whilst not completely sober?



If you were on a jury, and someone said "I'd had 4 pints so I can't be held responsible for taking her drunken enthusiasm at face value", as their defence, would you think that stands up as a defence, or would you dismiss it and say that after 4 pints, for that person on that day, they should still have been in a state to recognise that the other person was not in a state to consent.
The drunkenness scale is that of being tried by a jury of your peers - if your peers come to the conclusion that it is beyond reasonable doubt that (a) the other person was not in a state to give consent *and *(b) it is reasonable to think that you should have been aware that the other person was not in a state to given consent, then you'll get convicted. If they don't, you won't. 

Would a jury convict two drunk teenagers who slept together? I doubt it. Would they convict a more-or-less sober teenager who slept with a very drunk teenager? Probably yes and so they should - predatory fucks who go out looking for wasted women are not exactly uncommon. Two people who get drunk, meet in a nightclub, shag and can't remember it will never ever be convicted under this law. We know that because Clayton McDonald was acquitted, due to the circumstances in which he met the woman in this case, whilst Ched Evans was convicted, due to the - wildly different - circumstances that he met her.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> have you had a couple?


Not yet. You?


----------



## belboid (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The crime line case notes on the 2012 appeal attempt.


An excellent summary of the case.

It doesn't state they were friends.  You are confusing the applicant and the complainant.
R v Ched Evans (Chedwyn Evans) :: Crimeline


----------



## bluescreen (Apr 22, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> blacking out takes many forms and some of it is better than other bits: i've also woken up in a bed full of bloodstains, and that, my friend, is an unpleasant experience perhaps especially when it's all your own blood.


(((Pickman's)))


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

bimble said:


> Ok. So the man is the active part of sex and the woman just a passive receptacle. Leaving that to one side... What if (and this is not about the case this thread is about just a general theoretical query) - what if the woman is drunk and in her drunkenness is enthusiastically consenting?



I do see what you are getting at, and I don't disagree. I cannot however, recall a case where a woman has been prosecuted for having sex with a passed out man.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Not yet. You?


sadly not since 2002


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

belboid said:


> An excellent summary of the case.
> 
> It doesn't state they were friends.  You are confusing the applicant and the complainant.
> R v Ched Evans (Chedwyn Evans) :: Crimeline


Yes, you're right about the friends thing. 

But the point is she was well pissed when she met McDonald. They did not get pissed together as you stated.


----------



## belboid (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, you're right about the friends thing.
> 
> But the point is she was well pissed when she met McDonald. They did not get pissed together as you stated.


ohh, so the point you thought was less important earlier was now actually the central one?  Do fuck off, you bullshitting fuckwit.


----------



## bluescreen (Apr 22, 2016)

Is it just me who notices the way people are so ready to identify with the poor misunderstood and wrongly accused Ched Evans?
No, of course no one is doing that: they are rationally considering the evidence, scientifically evaluating it and objectively dismissing prejudiced opinion. Thank goodness for the dispassionate mind.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

belboid said:


> I dont give a shit if you 'listen' or not.  You're arguments are shit and incoherent
> 
> Is rape apologism, no more no less. You can attempt to make as much fudge as you like, but that is what it is.



Do go away and sober up, or recover what other substance is fogging your brain.

If you weren't such an incoherent pillock, I could take offence to assertion that I was a rape apologist.

I am on record on this board, on a number of occasions, having stated that I think that rape is an absolutely vile crime, and would see rapists going to jail for the rest of their natural lives, with great pleasure. It is my view that rape is on terms with murder in its seriousness, it is not just the apalling experience of the rape, it it is the unease that the victim can have for the rest of their lives, even in their own home. Rape is a despicable crime which destroys lives.

Now, stop being a dickhead.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

belboid said:


> ohh, so the point you thought was less important earlier was now actually the central one?


Lol, you lying cunt!

The central point, very obviously, was to refute your claim the she and McDonald got pissed together, and you know it.

They didn't.

Now suck it up you wriggling fucking chancer.


----------



## Athos (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> I do see what you are getting at, and I don't disagree. I cannot however, recall a case where a woman has been prosecuted for having sex with a passed out man.


You know when I said one of your previous posts on this thread was the most fatuous 'argument' I'd ever read? It's just been relegated to second place.


----------



## bluescreen (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Do go away and sober up, or recover what other substance is fogging your brain.
> 
> If you weren't such an incoherent pillock, I could take offence to assertion that I was a rape apologist.
> 
> ...


Whew. We've cleared that up, then!

PS. It's not about you.


----------



## Athos (Apr 22, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> How about posters go back and refresh their memory before posting further? This is going to be a joke otherwise.



Going to be?


----------



## Athos (Apr 22, 2016)

BigTom said:


> If you were on a jury, and someone said "I'd had 4 pints so I can't be held responsible for taking her drunken enthusiasm at face value", as their defence, would you think that stands up as a defence, or would you dismiss it and say that after 4 pints, for that person on that day, they should still have been in a state to recognise that the other person was not in a state to consent.
> The drunkenness scale is that of being tried by a jury of your peers - if your peers come to the conclusion that it is beyond reasonable doubt that (a) the other person was not in a state to give consent *and *(b) it is reasonable to think that you should have been aware that the other person was not in a state to given consent, then you'll get convicted. If they don't, you won't.
> 
> Would a jury convict two drunk teenagers who slept together? I doubt it. Would they convict a more-or-less sober teenager who slept with a very drunk teenager? Probably yes and so they should - predatory fucks who go out looking for wasted women are not exactly uncommon. Two people who get drunk, meet in a nightclub, shag and can't remember it will never ever be convicted under this law. We know that because Clayton McDonald was acquitted, due to the circumstances in which he met the woman in this case, whilst Ched Evans was convicted, due to the - wildly different - circumstances that he met her.



That's not actually the test.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> Is it just me who notices the way people are so ready to identify with the poor misunderstood and wrongly accused Ched Evans?
> No, of course no one is doing that: they are rationally considering the evidence, scientifically evaluating it and objectively dismissing prejudiced opinion. Thank goodness for the dispassionate mind.



If he is guilty, he deserves more than he got. If he is not guilty, then he does not deserve what he got. Justice demands that he gets the correct outcome, according to the evidence.

His behaviour was dreadful, whether he is innocent or not. No one is 'defending' him, legally he may be innocent, but morally he is absolutely disgusting. Morals and law are not always the same thing.


----------



## belboid (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Do go away and sober up, or recover what other substance is fogging your brain.
> 
> If you weren't such an incoherent pillock, I could take offence to assertion that I was a rape apologist.
> 
> ...


It is pretty common for rape apologists to claim that they want to see _real_ rapists punished, often in the strongest possible terms, just to really prove the point. And even though there is a real problem with convicted rapists often getting too lenient a sentence, the far, far, bigger problem is the atrociously low conviction rate. 5.7% of 15%. _That's_ the problem. So, yes, those of you who seek to lower the conviction rate even further, who pretend to have _studied_ the evidence after a quick google, and then declare INNOCENCE, you are rape apologists, you are part of the problem.


----------



## bluescreen (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Snippy snip:
> 
> Morals and law are not always the same thing.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

peterkro said:


> Ye s it's all a bit unclear as far as I can see the difference with a "black out" is that the memory loss is irreversible which is different from the usual "I was so pissed I can't remember what I did.



Pretty much. Memory isn't always present when you wake up, but it then returns. That is really pissed, been there, done that. Blackout is complete memory loss, no realisation of what you were up to the previous night. Only happened to me once, and that was after sixteen hours of continuous drinking. I was asleep in the middle of a country road, and was awakened by a policeman. I'd walked about four miles, with no recollection of the journey.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 22, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> orang utan no doubt


That's out of order


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

belboid said:


> It is pretty common for rape apologists to claim that they want to see _real_ rapists punished, often in the strongest possible terms, just to really prove the point. And even though there is a real problem with convicted rapists often getting too lenient a sentence, the far, far, bigger problem is the atrociously low conviction rate. 5.7% of 15%. _That's_ the problem. So, yes, those of you who seek to lower the conviction rate even further, who pretend to have _studied_ the evidence after a quick google, and then declare INNOCENCE, you are rape apologists, you are part of the problem.



I have reported this post. I am not an apologist for rape, in any way shape or form. In accusing me of being so you are a liar.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> That's out of order


yeh. yeh, you're right.


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> If he is guilty, he deserves more than he got. If he is not guilty, then he does not deserve what he got. Justice demands that he gets the correct outcome, according to the evidence.
> 
> His behaviour was dreadful, whether he is innocent or not. No one is 'defending' him, legally he may be innocent, but morally he is absolutely disgusting. Morals and law are not always the same thing.



He's a rapey piece of shit.  I don't care what technicality or stupid gap in our law he is going to exploit he will always be a rapist as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Athos (Apr 22, 2016)

belboid said:


> It is pretty common for rape apologists to claim that they want to see _real_ rapists punished, often in the strongest possible terms, just to really prove the point. And even though there is a real problem with convicted rapists often getting too lenient a sentence, the far, far, bigger problem is the atrociously low conviction rate. 5.7% of 15%. _That's_ the problem. So, yes, those of you who seek to lower the conviction rate even further, who pretend to have _studied_ the evidence after a quick google, and then declare INNOCENCE, you are rape apologists, you are part of the problem.



Yes, and increased likelihood of conviction is a far bigger deterrent than increased punishment. 

A lot of the arguments in this thread are thinly veiled suggestions that real rapists jump out of bushes in balaclavas. The corollary of which is that those who are upset by sex with anyone else have only themselves to blame.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

Athos said:


> You know when I said one of your previous posts on this thread was the most fatuous 'argument' I'd ever read? It's just been relegated to second place.



Do cite the case, or shut the fuck up. What I said was absolutely correct, and anyone who was not out to be deliberately argumentative would realise exactly what I was saying. Just to be clear, because the the man has the penis, the man must be absolutely certain that the act is consensual. There have been many cases where a man has been prosecuted for having intercourse with an unconscious woman, and rightly convicted of rape. My response was to try and get over to Bimble, that women do not get prosecuted for this offence (not sure if it is physiologically possible), but men do, therefore a man has an absolute responsibility to ensure that they are acting in both a legal and a moral manner.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Apr 22, 2016)

bimble said:


> Ok. So the man is the active part of sex and the woman just a passive receptacle. Leaving that to one side... What if (and this is not about the case this thread is about just a general theoretical query) - what if the woman is drunk and in her drunkenness is enthusiastically consenting?


If a woman - or man - is so drunk (or under the influence of any substance) they can't walk, is drifting in and out of sleep, is very slurry, or has lost continence, then it doesn't matter how enthusiastically they are going along with, or even initiating, sex - they are too drunk/under the influence to consent - and if you are less drunk/off your head than them, or even if you are as pissed as them but notice that they are very drunk - then no matter if you are a woman or man - you should not be having sex of any sort with the very drunk person as it is (or should be) rape or sexual assault.  Its not a case of never have sex with anyone who's a bit tipsy or slightly stoned or whatever, its usually pretty obvious, in my own experience, where sex should definitely not happen because the line could be crossed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Do cite the case, or shut the fuck up. What I said was absolutely correct, and anyone who was not out to be deliberately argumentative would realise exactly what I was saying. Just to be clear, because the the man has the penis, the man must be absolutely certain that the act is consensual. There have been many cases where a man has been prosecuted for having intercourse with an unconscious woman, and rightly convicted of rape. My response was to try and get over to Bimble, that women do not get prosecuted for this offence (not sure if it is physiologically possible), but men do, therefore a man has an absolute responsibility to ensure that they are acting in both a legal and a moral manner.








stop digging


----------



## bimble (Apr 22, 2016)

BigTom said:


> If you were on a jury, and someone said "I'd had 4 pints so I can't be held responsible for taking her drunken enthusiasm at face value", as their defence, would you think that stands up as a defence, or would you dismiss it and say that after 4 pints, for that person on that day, they should still have been in a state to recognise that the other person was not in a state to consent.



I honestly don't know - I wouldn't know the accused, or have a clue as to his capacity for empathy or judgement after 4 pints, would I? I'd be making a guess as to his accountability, and hers too presumably.
That's kind of all I was suggesting, that where alcohol meets informed consent its often not that clear cut, it's more messy and confusing than we'd like to imagine?

I know my views on consent & alcohol are totally uncool but I reckon probably they're basically just anachronistic:
I date from a time when it was 100% my job to determine whether or not I wanted to have sex. Meaning my behaviour growing up & still now is very much shaped by the idea that it's entirely my responsibility to police my self and to just not be around men whilst totally off my head, unless I'm sure I'd be ok with whatever happened come the morning. So I'm stuck with this idea that my safety far as possible is my responsibility, not yours.
And that's an unacceptable, heinously oldschool way of looking at things now, which I should probably be glad of but I'm just not quite there yet.


----------



## BigTom (Apr 22, 2016)

Athos said:


> That's not actually the test.



There's two things I said that could be the test



> If you were on a jury, and someone said "I'd had 4 pints so I can't be held responsible for taking her drunken enthusiasm at face value", as their defence, would you think that stands up as a defence, or would you dismiss it and say that after 4 pints, for that person on that day, they should still have been in a state to recognise that the other person was not in a state to consent.



and



> it is beyond reasonable doubt that (a) the other person was not in a state to give consent *and *(b) it is reasonable to think that you should have been aware that the other person was not in a state to given consent, then you'll get convicted. If they don't, you won't.



Could you elaborate please - the first is shaky I'm sure but I thought I had the law right in terms of the second bit so would appreciate being corrected


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> He's a rapey piece of shit.  I don't care what technicality or stupid gap in our law he is going to exploit he will always be a rapist as far as I'm concerned.



Even if a jury find that this is not the case? Been on many lynch mobs lately?

Do you not find that the fact that the conviction has been quashed, indicates that something wasn't right with the case? He may be a rapist, the new jury will make that decision. I find it quite disturbing that you have made an assumption of guilt, when the evidence has not been properly tested.

Did you read the transcript of the evidence in the post up the thread? If so, did it not raise a number of questions in your mind? On the facts as stated, the finding of the jury was more than somewhat inconsistent. 

There is also a major inconsistency in the alcohol findings, for it to be zero after the claimed level of intoxication is strange. A seasoned drinker eliminates circa 20mg% per hour. The estimate was 2.5 times the drink/drive limit, about 200mg%, for the level to be zero, then the ingested amount must be less, ergo, it casts doubt on the ability to give informed consent.

He mat well be guilty, the jury will decide. But despite your absolute knowledge that he is guilty, he is entitled to correct challenge of the evidence, and an outcome based on the evidence.

As I said before, his behaviour was disgraceful, but he is entitled to justice. Were it you standing in his place, I suspect you would want an outcome based on the evidence, not a blind assertion that you were guilty.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> stop digging



Go away, you are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 22, 2016)

bimble said:


> I honestly don't know - I wouldn't know the accused, or have a clue as to his capacity for empathy or judgement after 4 pints, would I? I'd be making a guess as to his accountability, and hers too presumably.
> That's kind of all I was suggesting, that where alcohol meets informed consent its often not that clear cut, it's more messy and confusing than we'd like to imagine?
> 
> I know my views on consent & alcohol are totally uncool but I reckon probably they're basically just anachronistic:
> ...



No. You should not have to be constantly responsible for your safety. Fair enough, walking up a dark alley whilst pissed is stupid, and that goes for men and women, but it is up to the male part of the populace not to attack you if you are in a vulnerable state. No woman who is raped is ever to blame, never.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Even if a jury find that this is not the case? Been on many lynch mobs lately?
> 
> Do you not find that the fact that the conviction has been quashed, indicates that something wasn't right with the case? He may be a rapist, the new jury will make that decision. I find it quite disturbing that you have made an assumption of guilt, when the evidence has not been properly tested.
> 
> ...


What 'transcript of the the evidence'?


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Even if a jury find that this is not the case? Been on many lynch mobs lately?
> 
> Do you not find that the fact that the conviction has been quashed, indicates that something wasn't right with the case? He may be a rapist, the new jury will make that decision. I find it quite disturbing that you have made an assumption of guilt, when the evidence has not been properly tested.
> 
> ...



I've read enough.  I've made up my mind, for me that is rape and he is a rapist.  The law is a constantly changing and adapting landscape it is far from perfect.  In years to come people like him will be convicted every time for this sort of thing just as the peeds are going to jail rather then being protected now.  Its not about a lynch mob, it matters not a jot to me (apart from if the vile rapist tries to join my club), the only lynch mob has been the one who has relentlessly gone after the victim.  Any concerns for her or her family or does your cherished holding of the law to some sort of standard it has done little to deserve trump everything and everyone?


----------



## BigTom (Apr 22, 2016)

bimble said:


> I honestly don't know - I wouldn't know the accused, or have a clue as to his capacity for empathy or judgement after 4 pints, would I? I'd be making a guess as to his accountability, and hers too presumably.
> That's kind of all I was suggesting, that where alcohol meets informed consent its often not that clear cut, it's more messy and confusing than we'd like to imagine?
> 
> I know my views on consent & alcohol are totally uncool but I reckon probably they're basically just anachronistic:
> ...



I don't need to imagine how messy and confusing stuff gets when drugs and alcohol are concerned. I think that the vast majority of people have been drunk and know how blurry things can get. There needs to be a law to convict the predatory fucks who seek out wasted women of rape, my understanding of the law as it is framed and has played out in this case, is that it is a pretty decent law to do that without causing the problems you are putting forward. That understanding is pending Athos' correction of my thoughts of course.


----------



## keybored (Apr 22, 2016)

BigTom said:


> Two equally drunk people, neither will be considered to be in a state to know the other was not in a state to be able to give consent.


Do you have a source for that?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Go away, you are embarrassing yourself.


My very point: this is your unfinest hour


----------



## BigTom (Apr 22, 2016)

keybored said:


> Do you have a source for that?



Have there been any such convictions? Pretty sure someone was challenged earlier in the thread to find some and never did.
Assuming my understanding of the law is correct, do you think that if person A was considered to be in a state where they were unable to give consent, and person B was in the same state, that it would be possible for it to be reasonable for person B to understand person A is not able to consent? I don't, hence it won't happen, and it hasn't happened, even though plenty of mutually drunk people sleep together every weekend, and the law has been in place for years.


----------



## keybored (Apr 22, 2016)

BigTom said:


> Have there been any such convictions? Pretty sure someone was challenged earlier in the thread to find some and never did.
> Assuming my understanding of the law is correct, do you think that if person A was considered to be in a state where they were unable to give consent, and person B was in the same state, that it would be possible for it to be reasonable for person B to understand person A is not able to consent? I don't, hence it won't happen, and it hasn't happened, even though plenty of mutually drunk people sleep together every weekend, and the law has been in place for years.




Not necessarily saying I doubt you (I agree with your point); here's why I ask. I know someone who is on police bail waiting to find out if he is to be charged with sexual assault. At the time of the alleged incident (back in January), he was so drunk he barely remembers what happened. The complainant was also drunk, but drunk less throughout the evening leading up to the incident and apparently has more recollection of what happened, enough to make a complaint the next day. An arrest followed, then unconditional police bail until the end of this month. He recently got a letter saying the bail is extended to sometime in September, apparently the CPS are still deciding whether they can make a case.

His solicitor made no mention of the thing you said, I don't know if it's any kind of defence to say "I was so drunk I can't recall whether consent was given".


----------



## bimble (Apr 22, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> No. You should not have to be constantly responsible for your safety. Fair enough, walking up a dark alley whilst pissed is stupid, and that goes for men and women, but it is up to the male part of the populace not to attack you if you are in a vulnerable state. No woman who is raped is ever to blame, never.



Righto. That's an easy banner to get behind. But.. did you see the abuse recently heaped upon Chrissie Hynde by well-meaning people when she wrote in her autobiography that she felt partly responsible for what happened to her aged 21 ?
She was violently villified by people shouting that she had every right to be off her head and to follow the hells angels guys home but has no right at all to claim any agency in / responsibility for what happened next.
I was thinking this is a generation gap thing, but if so then you Sasaferrato are kind of an incongruous frontliner.


----------



## BigTom (Apr 22, 2016)

keybored said:


> Not necessarily saying I doubt you (I agree with your point); here's why I ask. I know someone who is on police bail waiting to find out if he is to be charged with sexual assault. At the time of the alleged incident (back in January), he was so drunk he barely remembers what happened. The complainant was also drunk, but drunk less throughout the evening leading up to the incident and apparently has more recollection of what happened, enough to make a complaint the next day. An arrest followed, then unconditional police bail until the end of this month. He recently got a letter saying the bail is extended to sometime in September, apparently the CPS are still deciding whether they can make a case.
> 
> His solicitor made no mention of the thing you said, I don't know if it's any kind of defence to say "I was so drunk I can't recall whether consent was given".



I don't think it is - but the defence in this case is that she did consent, not that he was too drunk to remember if she consented. The questions are whether she was able to give consent, and if she wasn't able to give consent but did, was it reasonable for him to know that she wasn't able to give consent. Anything I've said is in that context, I haven't really thought about how this law might apply to different situations, I think the person you know is in a different position to the one I was considering.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 22, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> He's a rapey piece of shit.  I don't care what technicality or stupid gap in our law he is going to exploit he will always be a rapist as far as I'm concerned.




^^^ This.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 22, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> .


At last some sense


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 22, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> At last some sense


Old.

You need to come up with some new material, mate.


----------



## bimble (Apr 22, 2016)

BigTom said:


> if she wasn't able to give consent but did


So even if a woman says yes, enthusiastically, even if she lets say puts prince on the hifi and does a strip tease on the coffee table etc, its the man's job to second guess whether or not she's in a position to be taken at her word, to add up how many units of alcohol she's consumed and detract them from her apparent behaviour etc.
*gets coat*


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 22, 2016)

peterkro said:


> The pissing in drawers,wardrobes and on the floor thing is quite common and is more to do with sleepwalking rather than blacking out.


and its usually the correct destination for the toilet in your own house, walking from your own bed. falls down when it aint your house or your bed 


bimble said:


> add up how many units of alcohol she's consumed and detract them from her apparent behaviour



you KNOW when someones far gone, poper far gone. Not 'how many pints' or whatever, unit stuff is basic guidelines varies from build to tolerance levels etc. But totally slurred little recognition of where you are et, nodding off? thats gone. thats when mates guide other mates to the sofa for a sleep


----------



## bimble (Apr 22, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> you KNOW when someones far gone, proper far gone. Not 'how many pints' or whatever, unit stuff is basic guidelines varies from build to tolerance levels etc. But totally slurred little recognition of where you are et, nodding off? thats gone. thats when mates guide other mates to the sofa for a sleep


yes, i know. I'm sodding off out of this thread with my stuff anyway. Mostly because I don't know the circumstances of the case and my concerns are all about where things aren't as clear cut as in the scenario you & others describe (where one person is obviously totally out of it, in which case yes, there is no confusion, of course you can't have consensual sex with semi-conscious half asleep people).


----------



## BigTom (Apr 22, 2016)

bimble said:


> So even if a woman says yes, enthusiastically, even if she lets say puts prince on the hifi and does a strip tease on the coffee table etc, its the man's job to second guess whether or not she's in a position to be taken at her word, to add up how many units of alcohol she's consumed and detract them from her apparent behaviour etc.
> *gets coat*



Yes. It is up to you to make a judgement as to whether or not someone is too drunk or not to sleep with. In my case she put her hand down my trousers and tried to kiss me, she was too drunk to be able to know where my face was really and I'd brought her home from a nightclub because she was collapsed, being sick, unable to walk unaided or speak coherently and would not have been able to get home herself. When someone is too far gone, like DC says, you know it, but they can still make a move, sort of. I reckon if someone can do a striptease on a table, then they are probably not too fucked to know what they are doing, I dunno though having not been in that situation.

Are you saying that it's not possible for someone to make a judgement call as to whether someone is too fucked to know what they are doing? Or are you suggesting that it doesn't matter if you think that, if they make a move then go for it, no matter how fucked they are?


----------



## J Ed (Apr 22, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> He's a rapey piece of shit.  I don't care what technicality or stupid gap in our law he is going to exploit he will always be a rapist as far as I'm concerned.



I don't think that there are many cases where you can say that subsequent behaviour after an alleged crime is strong evidence of the crime being committed in the first place but this is surely one of those. In theory I suppose a non-rapist could well employ private investigators and misogynist internet activists to harass an alleged victim but in reality it isn't likely, is it?


----------



## LeslieB (Apr 22, 2016)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> You struggle with the difference between 'drunk' and 'so drunk she pissed herself'?
> 
> Fucksake.



Where do you draw the line, though?




existentialist said:


> I would certainly be extremely cautious about having sex with someone that drunk whom I didn't have reasonable cause to believe was wanting to have sex with me



So would I. Indeed I've only ever had sex as part of a long term relationship.  Don't get me wrong, I think Ched's behaviour is disgusting. But I'm not convinced it is rape.

If I was to go out tonight and get ultra pissed, and then rape some woman, the fact that I was drunk wouldn't be significant mitigation- and rightly so. Shouldn't the same apply to consent?


----------



## toggle (Apr 22, 2016)

LeslieB said:


> Where do you draw the line, though?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



can you work out the difference between getting drunk and doing something and getting drunk and having something done to you?


----------



## bimble (Apr 22, 2016)

toggle said:


> can you work out the difference between getting drunk and doing something and getting drunk and having something done to you?


Wow. That's where we end up with this, isn't it though: men do sex and women have sex done to them.


----------



## BigTom (Apr 22, 2016)

bimble said:


> Wow. That's where we end up with this, isn't it though: men do sex and women have sex done to them.



That's not what toggle said at all.


----------



## cyril_smear (Apr 22, 2016)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I suppose it depends on what the new evidence is as to whether i accept it fully exonerates Evans or not.



You dont really have a choice. The court of public opinion can piss and moan all day but its the courts of justice that matter.

I dont know what happened that night, only a certain amount of people do. If hes found not guilty i hope he gets adequate recompense for what will be nearly five years of lost earnings; the same as any other person should.


----------



## toggle (Apr 22, 2016)

bimble said:


> Wow. That's where we end up with this, isn't it though: men do sex and women have sex done to them.




i didn't mention the gender of the victims.


----------



## bluescreen (Apr 22, 2016)

And you know what? It really isn't so relevant what happens afterwards. Yeah, defence lawyers make a big deal of it but in real life people do strange things after they've been raped, including excusing the behaviour because they don't want to present as a victim.


----------



## toggle (Apr 22, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> And you know what? It really isn't so relevant what happens afterwards. Yeah, defence lawyers make a big deal of it but in real life people do strange things after they've been raped, including excusing the behaviour because they don't want to present as a victim.



it shouldn't be. but it is. 

defence lawyers use this stuff because it works. because people want to continue to beleive it. because it's easier to believe that women lie than accepting that rape isn't a crime done by nasty looking men in dark alleys.


----------



## Athos (Apr 22, 2016)

BigTom said:


> There's two things I said that could be the test
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's not my place to correct you, especially since, essentially, you're on the right side of this debate.   But -  bearing in mind I'm a dozen pints down such that I reserve my right to amend - basically, the test is: a) did she consent: and, b) if not, did he have a reasonable belief that she did. That second limb had two parts: first, did he (subjectively) hold that belief, and, secondly, was it (objectively) reasonable in all the circumstances.  Which is slightly (but importantly) different from how you expressed it.


----------



## Athos (Apr 22, 2016)

Any man who claims there is a fine line between a woman who is drunk and a woman who is so drunk as to be incapable of consenting to sex is a fucking cunt. We've all had sex with drunk women (usually when drunk ourselves), but, come on, for fuck's sake - if there's a sliver of doubt, don't go there. The law, as it stands, offers more than enough leeway. Which is what annoys me about people bending over backwards to excuse these scumbags.


----------



## emanymton (Apr 22, 2016)

Athos said:


> Any man who claims there is a fine line between a woman who is drunk and a woman who is so drunk as to be incapable of consenting to sex is a fucking cunt. We've all had sex with drunk women (usually when drunk ourselves), but, come on, for fuck's sake - if there's a sliver of doubt, don't go there. The law, as it stands, offers more than enough leeway. Which is what annoys me about people bending over backwards to excuse these scumbags.


It's like quibbling over exactly what point someone one is 'legal' or not.

Eta I meant in terms of age. God I need to get to bed.


----------



## Athos (Apr 22, 2016)

emanymton said:


> It's like quibbling over exactly what point someone one is 'legal' or not.
> 
> Eta I meant in terms of age. God I need to get to bed.


Innit? We all know that girls (and I use that word deliberately, instead of women) can look older than they are, so, if you want to sleep with someone who looks like they're sixteen, you better fucking check. There's a lot to be said for strict liability.


----------



## Grandma Death (Apr 22, 2016)

LeslieB said:


> Don't get me wrong, I think Ched's behaviour is disgusting. But I'm not convinced it is rape.



If he didnt get clear consent its rape. And even if consent was given prior to the act of penetration a victim doesnt waiver her right to change their mind-and this is true up to and including the point of penetration


----------



## Kesher (Apr 23, 2016)

Athos said:


> Any man who claims there is a fine line between a woman who is drunk and a woman who is so drunk as to be incapable of consenting to sex is a fucking cunt. We've all had sex with drunk women (usually when drunk ourselves), but, come on, for fuck's sake - if there's a sliver of doubt, don't go there. The law, as it stands, offers more than enough leeway. Which is what annoys me about people bending over backwards to excuse these scumbags.



How does a  drunk who is about to have  sex with another  drunk discern a  sliver of doubt?


----------



## existentialist (Apr 23, 2016)

Kesher said:


> How does a  drunk who is about to have  sex with a drunken woman discern a  sliver of doubt?


The same way he decides not to grab his car keys and drive home.


----------



## Kesher (Apr 23, 2016)

existentialist said:


> The same way he decides not to grab his car keys and drive home.



Not the same


----------



## toggle (Apr 23, 2016)

Kesher said:


> Not the same



if someone isn't capable of working it out, then they shouldn't be having sex


----------



## cyril_smear (Apr 23, 2016)

The thread title is still wrong. He was a convicted rapist when he was let out of prison.


----------



## Kesher (Apr 23, 2016)

toggle said:


> if someone isn't capable of working it out, then they shouldn't be having sex



But we are talking about a "_*sliver* _of doubt"


----------



## existentialist (Apr 23, 2016)

Kesher said:


> Not the same


It should be.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 23, 2016)

Kesher said:


> But we are talking about a "_*sliver* _of doubt"


Nobody died from not having sex. If there's a sliver of doubt, then it's time to make with the responsible and hope she'll respect you enough in the morning to still fancy you sober.


----------



## Athos (Apr 23, 2016)

Kesher said:


> But we are talking about a "_*sliver* _of doubt"



Yes, morally, he shouldn't do it if he has a sliver of doubt.  But, legally, he's given much, much more leeway; the jury can only find him guilty if they're sure beyond reasonable doubt that he did not reasonably believe she'd consented - effectively, if they're sure he knew the woman he was having sex with hadn't agreed to have sex with him.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 23, 2016)

Kesher said:


> But we are talking about a "_*sliver* _of doubt"


If you have a sliver of doubt, then stop. 

Honestly this stuff isn't that fucking hard. 

And bimble, by your reckoning it's my fault that I've been raped twice. I don't think it is. I think it's the fault of the men who raped me. To believe otherwise is to perpetuate rape myths. Incidentally, I'm 51.


----------



## Kesher (Apr 23, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Nobody died from not having sex. If there's a sliver of doubt, then it's time to make with the responsible and hope she'll respect you enough in the morning to still fancy you sober.



So someone who is heavily  under the influence of a  powerful psychoactive drug like  alcohol is meant to  be aware of such a finely tuned element of judgement?


----------



## existentialist (Apr 23, 2016)

Kesher said:


> So someone who is heavily  under the influence of a  powerful psychoactive drug like  alcohol is meant to  be aware of such a finely tuned element of judgement?


What's the alternative? Absolve them of all responsibility for act committed under the influence? Doesn't work for drunk driving, does it? So what's different about sex?


----------



## bimble (Apr 23, 2016)

trashpony said:


> If you have a sliver of doubt, then stop.
> 
> Honestly this stuff isn't that fucking hard.
> 
> And bimble, by your reckoning it's my fault that I've been raped twice. I don't think it is. I think it's the fault of the men who raped me. To believe otherwise is to perpetuate rape myths. Incidentally, I'm 51.



Of course it's not your fault trashpony. What you've written shows how fucked up my reckoning is when you take it to its logical conclusion.


----------



## Athos (Apr 23, 2016)

Kesher said:


> So someone who is heavily  under the influence of a  powerful psychoactive drug like  alcohol is meant to  be aware of such a finely tuned element of judgement?


It's really not that fine a line between sometime who wants to have sex with you and someone who doesn't, however drunk you are. And, if you can't tell the difference, such that your liable to rape someone when you've been drinking, don't drink.


----------



## toggle (Apr 23, 2016)

Kesher said:


> But we are talking about a "_*sliver* _of doubt"



and my point still stands. if you are unable to work out if your partner is consenting, then y7ou should refrain from having sex.

tbh, i certainly don't think i'd want to be alone with someone who felt they were unable to tell the difference between consensual and non consensual sex.


----------



## toggle (Apr 23, 2016)

Kesher said:


> So someone who is heavily  under the influence of a  powerful psychoactive drug like  alcohol is meant to  be aware of such a finely tuned element of judgement?



if someone believes they are unable to refrain from rape while drunk, then they should aviod drinking.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 23, 2016)

bimble said:


> Righto. That's an easy banner to get behind. But.. did you see the abuse recently heaped upon Chrissie Hynde by well-meaning people when she wrote in her autobiography that she felt partly responsible for what happened to her aged 21 ?
> She was violently villified by people shouting that she had every right to be off her head and to follow the hells angels guys home but has no right at all to claim any agency in / responsibility for what happened next.
> I was thinking this is a generation gap thing, but if so then you Sasaferrato are kind of an incongruous frontliner.



I was taught by my father that no means no, and also that if a woman is drunk, then only scum take advantage. I can understand your view that a woman has a duty of care to herself, but even if she does put herself in stupid situation, there is never a case where she is asking to be raped.


----------



## Athos (Apr 23, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> I was taught by my father that no means no, and also that if a woman is drunk, then only scum take advantage. I can understand your view that a woman has a duty of care to herself, but even if she does put herself in stupid situation, there is never a case where she is asking to be raped.


This whole 'duty of care' thing makes me uncomfortable. Because it follows that a woman might be causally responsible (if not culpable) as a result of a breach of that duty. Whereas all of the responsibility for rapes always rests solely with rapists.  Victims (overwhelmingly women) don't need to change their behaviour; rapists (overwhelmingly men) do.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 23, 2016)

Athos said:


> This whole 'duty of care' thing makes me uncomfortable. Because it follows that a woman might be causally responsible (if not culpable) as a result of a breach of that duty. Whereas all of the responsibility for rapes always rests solely with rapists.  Victims (overwhelmingly women) don't need to change their behaviour; rapists (overwhelmingly men) do.


Not just their (well, "our")  behaviour: our assumptions and expectations, too.


----------



## bimble (Apr 23, 2016)

toggle said:


> and my point still stands. if you are unable to work out if your partner is consenting, then you should refrain from having sex.
> 
> tbh, i certainly don't think i'd want to be alone with someone who felt they were unable to tell the difference between consensual and non consensual sex.



Just want to say the only bit that confuses me in all this is the question of whether drunken consent is consent, or not. It seems like the case law on this is far from clearcut.

Eg. "In _R v Bree_ [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. ."
That's just not completely plain black and white, is it? The case was not about someone who'd passed out it was about whether or not her choices at the time should be deemed invalid due to intoxication rendering her incapable of a fully informed and considered rational decision. 

The question being basically do intoxicated people have the capacity to consent.
Here's someone's attempt to have a serious look at the question. He concludes that no, drunken factual consent should not be the same thing as legal consent but acknowledges that its a complex question not a plain and simple thing. 
He says "I am not a keen supporter of paternalism and am very wary of state intervention in order to protect people against their will, especially in areas of sexual choices which are so important to a person’s wellbeing. Nevertheless, I think the argument advanced in the name of (positive) sexual autonomy should be rejected.."
http://www.trinitinture.com/documents/wallerstein.pdf


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 23, 2016)

Grandma Death said:


> If he didnt get clear consent its rape.


If that were the case then McDonald would have been convicted too. As Athos has pointed out several times, the bloke can have a reasonable belief that she consented, even if in fact she actually hadn't.

The only difference between what Evans did and what McDonald did was that she travelled to the hotel with McDonald in a taxi and was heard to ask him not to leave. She says she doesn't remember that, or consenting to McDonald either, and she definitely did not get drunk with McDonald earlier. Bellend just made that up.

I think McDonald's behaviour that night was worse than Evans'. He picked the girl up and texted his mates to get involved.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 23, 2016)

bimble said:


> Just want to say the only bit that confuses me in all this is the question of whether drunken consent is consent, or not. It seems like the case law on this is far from clearcut.
> 
> Eg. "In _R v Bree_ [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. ."
> That's just not completely plain black and white, is it? The case was not about someone who'd passed out it was about whether or not her choices at the time should be deemed invalid due to intoxication rendering her incapable of a fully informed and considered rational decision.
> ...


That's what this is about. Not whether or not someone who is comotosed and pissing themselves is consenting. Of course they're not.


----------



## Athos (Apr 23, 2016)

bimble said:


> Just want to say the only bit that confuses me in all this is the question of whether drunken consent is consent, or not. It seems like the case law on this is far from clearcut.
> 
> Eg. "In _R v Bree_ [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. ."
> That's just not completely plain black and white, is it? The case was not about someone who'd passed out it was about whether or not her choices at the time should be deemed invalid due to intoxication rendering her incapable of a fully informed and considered rational decision.
> ...


We did Bree 60 pages so!


----------



## Kesher (Apr 23, 2016)

l


existentialist said:


> What's the alternative? Absolve them of all responsibility for act committed under the influence? Doesn't work for drunk driving, does it? So what's different about sex?



Because you are not allowed to be drive whilst drunk. Whereas you are allowed to have sex whilst drunk. Also even  if you are not drunk,   you are not  allowed to drive  over the drink-drive limit. Whereas with sex there is no clearly defined drink-sex limit. Additionally, a car does not  to give consent to be driven.


----------



## bimble (Apr 23, 2016)

Athos said:


> We did Bree 60 pages so!


so i see, back in october 2014 before i was even born


----------



## existentialist (Apr 23, 2016)

Kesher said:


> l
> 
> 
> Because you are not allowed to be drive whilst drunk. Whereas you are allowed to have sex whilst drunk. Also even  if you are not drunk,   you are not  allowed to drive  over the drink-drive limit. Whereas with sex there is no clearly defined drink-sex limit. Additionally, a car does not  to give consent to be driven.


So it's all about what you are "allowed" to do??

Do you not see what a horrifying perspective that represents to women? The idea that the decision as to whether or not to have sex with them boils down to no more than the legal niceties? This really is bollocks.


----------



## Athos (Apr 23, 2016)

Kesher said:


> l
> 
> 
> Because you are not allowed to be drive whilst drunk. Whereas you are allowed to have sex whilst drunk. Also even  if you are not drunk,   you are not  allowed to drive  over the drink-drive limit. Whereas with sex there is no clearly defined drink-sex limit. Additionally, a car does not  to give consent to be driven.


It's strange to think of sex in terms of what you're allowed to do to someone else, as opposed to what you and someone else both want to do together.


----------



## Athos (Apr 23, 2016)

bimble said:


> so i see, back in october 2014 before i was even born



The olden days.


----------



## Kesher (Apr 23, 2016)

I was not the one who started the drink-driving comparison. However since it was used,  I am trying to explain that the drink-driving scenario is less complicated than the drink-sex  one. E.G: breathalysers are not involved and neither is human interaction.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 23, 2016)

Kesher said:


> I was not the one who started the drink-driving comparison. However since it was used,  I am trying to explain that the drink-driving scenario is less complicated than the drink-sex  one. E.G: breathalysers are not involved and neither is human interaction.


I give up. Not least because the idea that I'm talking rationally with someone who appears to believe what you appear to is making me feel like I need a shower.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 23, 2016)

bimble said:


> Wow. That's where we end up with this, isn't it though: men do sex and women have sex done to them.



It's where *some* heterosexual interactions *do* end up. That much is undeniable. Sometimes - say if you're unconscious - you have *no* agency.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 23, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Do you not see what a horrifying perspective that represents to women? The idea that the decision as to whether or not to have sex with them boils down to no more than the legal niceties? This really is bollocks.


Sure, but the law requires that a destinction is made between appalling behaviour and illegal behavior.

Both Evans and McDonald claimed that she was a willing and enthusiastic participant in what happened. McDonald has since given an interview stating that he believed the reason he was acquitted and Evans convicted was because Evans came across very badly when he gave his testimony. Not that the testimony differed from his own.

The suggestion from them is therefore that she gave her consent at the time but may have forgotten afterwards. There was expert testimony given at the trial, confirming that can happen. Most of us, when pissed, have said or done things that we can't remember the next morning. _I've done it on these boards!_ 

If that's what happened the question is not whether or not consent was given, but whether the consent given was invalid because of inebriation and did the blokes reasonably believe she was consenting.

So we're back to square one. The new evidence was compelling enough to have his conviction quashed. IF it relates to the issue of consent it is quite possible that Evans is legally not guilty of rape.

That doesn't mean that he and McDonald are not guilty of behaving like utter bastards. But that's not illegal.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 23, 2016)

Kesher said:


> So someone who is heavily  under the influence of a  powerful psychoactive drug like  alcohol is meant to  be aware of such a finely tuned element of judgement?



Yes. It *should* be ingrained into your social behaviours.


----------



## Kesher (Apr 23, 2016)

Alcohol can be highly efficient at   temporarily  erasing ingrained  social behaviours


----------



## existentialist (Apr 23, 2016)

Kesher said:


> Alcohol can be highly efficient at   temporarily  erasing ingrained  social behaviours


Then - as someone else has pointed out - don't use it. The fact that alcohol fucks with people's decision-making processes is *exactly* the reason why we should be cautious about consent from someone who's consumed it (especially lots) *as well as* being *exactly* the reason why we should know how it affects us, and avoid it if it's likely to result in us causing someone else harm, no matter how "legal" we might be in doing so.

It is not complicated. Most of the time, it is about situations which simply shouldn't arise. Using the fact that they do as some kind of way of excusing the consequences when they happen is Just Not On.

I admit, we're straying from questions of pure legality here, but those questions don't exist in isolation, but in a context: this is the context.

And, to answer Spymaster's point, yes, it may well be that all parties involved turn out to be technically innocent on a charge of rape. Were there an offence of Being An Utter Cunt, however, they'd be bang to rights on all counts.

And, if Evans is acquitted in his retrial, I hope that all those who cry "vindicated!" don't actually forget what he *did* do, and admitted to doing. If nothing else, then if I were involved in his club, I'd be wanting to make sure he never darkened our door again - footballers are, for better or worse, role models, and we don't need our role models demonstrating that not giving a shit about going two-up on a woman sufficiently drunk as to raise any question at all about consent is somehow an OK way to behave.


----------



## dylanredefined (Apr 23, 2016)

Athos said:


> It's strange to think of sex in terms of what you're allowed to do to someone else, as opposed to what you and someone else both want to do together.



 Well that is what happens when the law is involved.
  From what I have read I can't see how a trial can come up with anything other than "You are extra guilty you rapey bastard" maybe stuff that explains why he is innocent is not in public yet.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 23, 2016)

existentialist said:


> And, if Evans is acquitted in his retrial, I hope that all those who cry "vindicated!" don't actually forget what he *did* do, and admitted to doing.


Well all he's admitted to doing is having drunken sex with a woman who was enthusiastically consenting.


----------



## toggle (Apr 23, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Sure, but the law requires that a destinction is made between appalling behaviour and illegal behavior.
> 
> Both Evans and McDonald claimed that she was a willing and enthusiastic participant in what happened. McDonald has since given an interview stating that he believed the reason he was acquitted and Evans convicted was because Evans came across very badly when he gave his testimony. Not that the testimony differed from his own.
> 
> ...



so mcdonald dosen't recognise that there is a distinction between the circumstances for him and for evans. as much as i find it nauseating, i don't consider it supprising that it would be accepted that the woman going back to his room was reasonable grounds for him to believe he had consent. wheras the man who he invited over for seconds did not have that excuse.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 23, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well all he's admitted to doing is having drunken sex with a woman who was enthusiastically consenting.


Maybe the moral bar is set differently for footballers, but regardless of the legalities, that's not the kind of behaviour I'd want my employees/ambassadors/representatives being seen to be doing...


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 23, 2016)

toggle said:


> so mcdonald dosen't recognise that there is a distinction between the circumstances for him and for evans. as much as i find it nauseating, i don't consider it supprising that it would be accepted that the woman going back to his room was reasonable grounds for him to believe he had consent. wheras the man who he invited over for seconds did not have that excuse.


Yes. That's the only reason that I can see for the difference in the verdicts is that and the porters evidence.

Similarly the porter's testimony that she asked McDonald not to leave her, could be taken as reasonable grounds _for him to believe she was consenting_, despite the fact that it's not actual consent.


----------



## toggle (Apr 23, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Yes. That's the only reason that I can see for the difference in the verdicts.
> 
> Similarly, the porter's testimony that she asked him not to leave her, could be taken as reasonable grounds _for him to believe she was consenting_, despite the fact that it's not consent.



it's just indicative of the mentality that they don't seem to understand that there is a difference.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 23, 2016)

toggle said:


> it's just indicative of the mentality that they don't seem to understand that there is a difference.


And therein lies the problem that the jury faces that I was getting so much stick for pointing out yesterday.


----------



## toggle (Apr 23, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> And therein lies the problem that the jury faces that I was getting so much stick for pointing out yesterday.



the problem is that juries also can contain people who can't see a difference. and people who think that women who drink deserve what they get. and all sorts of other shit.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 23, 2016)

toggle said:


> the problem is that juries also can contain people who can't see a difference. and people who think that women who drink deserve what they get. and all sorts of other shit.


Well that's _another_ problem, but even if you had a jury of the 12 most reasonable people on the planet, they'd be hard pressed to definitively decide what a young, not very bright, pissed man, _thought someone else was thinking_ in circumstances like this, and whether it was reasonable.


----------



## toggle (Apr 23, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well that's _another_ problem, but even if you had a jury of the 12 most reasonable people on the planet, they'd be hard pressed to definitively decide what a young, not very bright, pissed man, _thought someone else was thinking_ in circumstances like this, and whether it was reasonable.



his voluntary alcohol consumption is not a consideration. at least in law. in practice in the minds of jurors is a different matter.


----------



## Athos (Apr 23, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well that's _another_ problem, but even if you had a jury of the 12 most reasonable people on the planet, they'd be hard pressed to definitively decide what a young, not very bright, pissed man, _thought someone else was thinking_ in circumstances like this, and whether it was reasonable.



Yes, and that's why the bar is set so high i.e. they have to be certain beyond all reasonable doubt that he didn't believe she'd consented, beofre then can return a guilty verdict.  If they couldn't decide that he didn't know she hadn't consented, they'd have to acquit.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 23, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yes, and that's why the bar is set so high i.e. they have to be certain beyond all reasonable doubt that he didn't believe she'd consented, beofre then can return a guilty verdict.  If they couldn't decide that he didn't know she hadn't consented, they'd have to acquit.


Well yes, in theory. In practice they can never be certain beyond all reasonable doubt what he thought she was thinking, particularly in a case where the victim can't remember anything about it.


----------



## Athos (Apr 23, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well yes, in theory. In practice they can never be certain beyond all reasonable doubt what he thought she was thinking, particularly in a case where the victim can't remember anything about it.


Which is part of the reason that a tiny porportion of rapes result in conviction. Which, in turn, is why I have limited sympathy for those who imply that the law is too difficult for men to understand and/or abide by.


----------



## toggle (Apr 23, 2016)

Athos said:


> Which is part of the reason that a tiny porportion of rapes result in conviction. Which, in turn, is why I have limited sympathy for those who imply that the law is too difficult for men to understand and/or abide by.



nods.

made worse by how much of the doubt comes from rape myths and beliefs about women's reliability and truthfullness.


----------



## Cid (Apr 23, 2016)

Guidance (from the judicial studies board) in criminal cases is not to use 'beyond reasonable doubt' when directing a jury, instead they should be directed to be 'sure the defendant is guilty'. Although arguably this is just as confusing and opens up still more cans of worms. Would it be that fucking hard to publish some kind of nice jury-oriented infographic neatly showing how the standard of proof works?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 23, 2016)

Athos said:


> Which is part of the reason that a tiny porportion of rapes result in conviction. Which, in turn, is why I have limited sympathy for those who imply that the law is too difficult for men to understand and/or abide by.


Well I'm glad we're agreeing today but surprised, given that I've argued nothing different to yesterday.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 23, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Do cite the case, or shut the fuck up. What I said was absolutely correct, and anyone who was not out to be deliberately argumentative would realise exactly what I was saying. Just to be clear, because the the man has the penis, the man must be absolutely certain that the act is consensual. There have been many cases where a man has been prosecuted for having intercourse with an unconscious woman, and rightly convicted of rape. My response was to try and get over to Bimble, that women do not get prosecuted for this offence (not sure if it is physiologically possible), but men do, therefore a man has an absolute responsibility to ensure that they are acting in both a legal and a moral manner.


You're wrong,  it does happen - it's rare,  but does happen. In the UK the most well-known case of this kind is the Joyce McKinney case, who was prosecuted and jailed in 1978 for forcing a man to have sex with her against his will. 

And it is physiologically possible - I would expect you to know that, given you were a nurse. 

Next time, try Googling before posting to avoid Pickman's model posting more pictures of diggers.


----------



## bimble (Apr 23, 2016)

toggle said:


> if someone believes they are unable to refrain from rape while drunk, then they should aviod drinking.



Sure, yes.  But it's totally unacceptable to suggest that a person should avoid drinking if they believe there's any chance they might end up enthusiastically drunkenly having sex with somebody whilst they are so pissed that a jury might deem that their consent at the time was invalid, right?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 23, 2016)

bimble said:


> Sure, yes.  But it's totally unacceptable to suggest that a person should avoid drinking if they believe there's any chance they might end up enthusiastically drunkenly having sex with somebody whilst they are so pissed that a jury might deem that their consent at the time was invalid, right?



Of course. Anything else would be blaming the victim for being raped.

What is it that people find so complicated with regards to consent?


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 23, 2016)

bimble said:


> Sure, yes.  But it's totally unacceptable to suggest that a person should avoid drinking if they believe there's any chance they might end up enthusiastically drunkenly having sex with somebody whilst they are so pissed that a jury might deem that their consent at the time was invalid, right?


What if you had a friend who repeatedly got wasted and ended up sleeping with people whilst drunk, and who would phone you the next day regretting it? Every time they went out? Would you recommend they still drank that much?


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 23, 2016)

And no, I'm not blaming the victim,  just trying to persuade bimble to think about what they're posting.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 23, 2016)

Kesher said:


> Alcohol can be highly efficient at   temporarily  erasing ingrained  social behaviours



That's contestable by about 100 years of psychological and psychiatric research, both of which have found that alcohol, even in immoderate quantities, only has a mild dis-inhibitory effect. That is, it relaxes your mental censor, it *doesn't* cause you to undertake behaviours that you're not already consciously or unconsciously aligned with.

"Temporarily erasing" is a bag of arse.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 23, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well all he's admitted to doing is having drunken sex with a woman who was enthusiastically consenting.



Although the "enthusiastic consent" was arguably her pissing herself while unconscious, rather than anything conscious and vocal.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 23, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Although the "enthusiastic consent" was arguably her pissing herself while unconscious, rather than anything conscious and vocal.


Although there's no evidence that she pissed herself or was unconcious in their company. She just said she woke up at 11.30am having wet the bed.


----------



## belboid (Apr 23, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well I'm glad we're agreeing today but surprised, given that I've argued nothing different to yesterday.


Your crocodile tears are just hypocritical tosh. You continue to find excuses for men, shown up again with shit 
Iike:


Spymaster said:


> Well yes, in theory. In practice they can never be certain beyond all reasonable doubt what he thought she was thinking, particularly in a case where the victim can't remember anything about it.


And then you demand that the men are not just 'not guilty' but are INNOCENT.  You pretend to care that rapists get away with it, but make argument after argument about why more men should be found not guilty, why more men should get away with rape. Shameful.


----------



## belboid (Apr 23, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Although there's no evidence that she pissed herself or was unconcious in their company. She just said she woke up at 11.30am having wet the bed.


Good of you to make sure the sexual abusers' case is made for them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 23, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Although there's no evidence that she pissed herself or was unconcious in their company. She just said she woke up at 11.30am having wet the bed.



There's also no evidence that she hadn't. An absence of evidence does not mean an absence of occurrence, it only *implies* it.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 23, 2016)

belboid said:


> Your crocodile tears are just hypocritical tosh. You continue to find excuses for men, shown up again with shit
> Iike:
> 
> And then you demand that the men are not just 'not guilty' but are INNOCENT.  You pretend to care that rapists get away with it, but make argument after argument about why more men should be found not guilty, why more men should get away with rape. Shameful.


Lies.

You've already demonstrated your piss-poor grasp of what's going on here.

Get fucked you bullshitting turd.

<ignored>


----------



## belboid (Apr 23, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Lies.
> 
> You've already demonstrated your grasp of what's going on here.
> 
> ...


No 'lies' simply a different point of view to yours. But it's the kind of false dichotomy you like, same as the one that leads you to (as you did earlier) immediately jump from him getting off to prosecuting her for false accusation. A disgusting attitude. 

Not the first time you've claimed to put me on ignore either, wonder how true this one is.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 23, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's also no evidence that she hadn't. An absence of evidence does not mean an absence of occurrence, it only *implies* it.


Absolutely, but the suggestion is completely unreliable which is why the prosecution didn't try to use it.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 23, 2016)

belboid said:


> No 'lies' simply a different point of view to yours. But it's the kind of false dichotomy you like, same as the one that leads you to (as you did earlier) immediately jump from him getting off to prosecuting her for false accusation. A disgusting attitude.
> 
> Not the first time you've claimed to put me on ignore either, wonder how true this one is.


Curious how those who claim they are so outraged by supposed excusing of the events in Cologne by "the Left" are willing to give Evans so much leeway. Almost as if there are some other motivation over their postings on that thread.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 23, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Curious how those who claim they are so outraged by supposed excusing of the events in Cologne by "the Left" are willing to give Evans so much leeway.


Christ. So now, not subscribing to made-up 'facts' against him is affording him undue leeway. 

The bloke has had his conviction overturned. There'll be a reason for that.


----------



## RubyBlue (Apr 24, 2016)

.


----------



## RubyBlue (Apr 24, 2016)

I meant hesbvute


----------



## RubyBlue (Apr 24, 2016)

Cute


----------



## RubyBlue (Apr 24, 2016)

Lol


----------



## RubyBlue (Apr 24, 2016)

Twatten


----------



## RubyBlue (Apr 24, 2016)

Hag .lucky I'm gay lol Pamela lol she's ,y. New go away  m


----------



## bendeus (Apr 24, 2016)

RubyBlue said:


> Hag .lucky I'm gay lol Pamela lol she's ,y. New go away  m


You want to be putting more tobacco in them, fella


----------



## bimble (Apr 24, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's contestable by about 100 years of psychological and psychiatric research, both of which have found that alcohol, even in immoderate quantities, only has a mild dis-inhibitory effect. That is, it relaxes your mental censor, it *doesn't* cause you to undertake behaviours that you're not already consciously or unconsciously aligned with.
> "Temporarily erasing" is a bag of arse.



But at the same time, the idea that alcohol can 'temporarily erase' someone's _capacity to give valid consent _is not a bag of arse its part of the legal guidelines for juries to consider, isn't it.



equationgirl said:


> What if you had a friend who repeatedly got wasted and ended up sleeping with people whilst drunk, and who would phone you the next day regretting it? Every time they went out? Would you recommend they still drank that much?



Yep, exactly. I had a conversation with a friend couple of weeks ago where she told me that she'd woken up in a bloke's bed (not a stranger a friend of hers) with no recollection of what had happened the night before, how far they'd gone etc. He was apparently completely horrified when she told him that she couldn't remember. Of course as her mate I'm massively concerned about her doing this sort of thing and not afraid to tell her to please try really really hard to not get in that sort of situation again, call me before hooking up with anyone etc. i don't think that makes me a rape apologist.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 24, 2016)

bimble said:


> i don't think that makes me a rape apologist.



Of course it doesn't. It makes you a decent friend.

It's only Bellend who's been chucking around accusations of rape apology and he's a hysterical dunce.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 24, 2016)

RubyBlue said:


> I'm twatted lol I m lol some veg but vim bog a. Fuck ft his guy now he's cute text





RubyBlue said:


> I meant hesbvute





RubyBlue said:


> Cute





RubyBlue said:


> Lol





RubyBlue said:


> Twatten





RubyBlue said:


> Hag .lucky I'm gay lol Pamela lol she's ,y. New go away  m



How's the head?


----------



## joe_infinity (Apr 24, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's contestable by about 100 years of psychological and psychiatric research, both of which have found that alcohol, even in immoderate quantities, only has a mild dis-inhibitory effect.




Are you able to actually *cite* some of this "about 100 years of psychological and psychiatric research"? or did you just fabricate this ^ little factoid yourself?

It's important to check, since studies show that 56.9% of statistics are invented on the spot...


----------



## belboid (Apr 24, 2016)

bimble said:


> Yep, exactly. I had a conversation with a friend couple of weeks ago where she told me that she'd woken up in a bloke's bed (not a stranger a friend of hers) with no recollection of what had happened the night before, how far they'd gone etc. He was apparently completely horrified when she told him that she couldn't remember. Of course as her mate I'm massively concerned about her doing this sort of thing and not afraid to tell her to please try really really hard to not get in that sort of situation again, call me before hooking up with anyone etc. i don't think that makes me a rape apologist.


You haven't made any excuses for the men, you haven't pretended to know all about this case and to have insights that mean you're sure Evans will be found to be innocent. Worrying about someone getting so pissed they can't recall what happened is hardly excusing any man who might abuse that incapacity. It's very different to what was said by the scumbag spymaster (or any of the other people who have been rape apologists here)


----------



## toggle (Apr 24, 2016)

joe_infinity said:


> Are you able to actually *cite* some of this "about 100 years of psychological and psychiatric research"? or did you just fabricate this ^ little factoid yourself?
> 
> It's important to check, since studies show that 56.9% of statistics are invented on the spot...



so you don't actually want a citation, you want to make an accusation.


----------



## RubyBlue (Apr 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> How's the head?



After reading this thread during the day I think I was trying to see if - although drunk - could consent have been given or implied - guess I got my answer. It was an experiment


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 24, 2016)

bimble said:


> But at the same time, the idea that alcohol can 'temporarily erase' someone's _capacity to give valid consent _is not a bag of arse its part of the legal guidelines for juries to consider, isn't it.



Nope. The idea that it can *lower* someone's capacity is. If "legal guidelines" stated that it can "temporarily erase" (they state nothing of the sort) capacity, then they would be wrong on a point of fact.
If you're going to be disputatious, it's best to be sure of your arguments first.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 24, 2016)

joe_infinity said:


> Are you able to actually *cite* some of this "about 100 years of psychological and psychiatric research"? or did you just fabricate this ^ little factoid yourself?



Wootton, B. 'Social Science and Social Pathology'. Chapter VI. 1959.
Welner, B. (2008) "Drug-Facilitated Sex Assault". (from less than 10 years ago)
Sigmund Freud's research into "frigidity" (which is gone into in "Beyond the Pleasure Principle") was centred around finding a substance that would dis-inhibit women and make them more sexually-pliant. He eventually went with cocaine, but experimented with alcohol.

That's 3 examples from my bookshelves. A search on Google Scholar would probably net you a much wider selection.



> It's important to check, since studies show that 56.9% of statistics are invented on the spot...



Yes, they are, about 98.4% of the time.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 24, 2016)

joe_infinity said:


> Are you able to actually *cite* some of this "about 100 years of psychological and psychiatric research"? or did you just fabricate this ^ little factoid yourself?
> 
> It's important to check, since studies show that 56.9% of statistics are invented on the spot...



Wrong! It's 56.963%.


----------



## Kesher (Apr 24, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's contestable by about 100 years of psychological and psychiatric research, both of which have found that alcohol, even in immoderate quantities, only has a mild dis-inhibitory effect. That is, it relaxes your mental censor, it *doesn't* cause you to undertake behaviours that you're not already consciously or unconsciously aligned with.
> 
> "Temporarily erasing" is a bag of arse.



My argument misrepresented or misunderstood: perhaps a bit of both.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 24, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope. The idea that it can *lower* someone's capacity is. If "legal guidelines" stated that it can "temporarily erase" (they state nothing of the sort) capacity, then they would be wrong on a point of fact.
> If you're going to be disputatious, it's best to be sure of your arguments first.



We are not talking about disinhibition though; alcohol is a disinhibitor, as evidenced by the drunken antics in any town centre at closing time; we are talking about an anaesthetic, which alcohol is when ingested in large quantity. There is no difference between a scumbag that dopes somebody with Rohypnol, and a scumbag that shags someone who is unconscious due to excess alcohol.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 24, 2016)

Athos said:


> Which is part of the reason that a tiny porportion of rapes result in conviction. Which, in turn, is why I have limited sympathy for those who imply that the law is too difficult for men to understand and/or abide by.



Yes indeed, rape convictions are not easily got. Perhaps it is time that the height of the bar was looked at.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 24, 2016)

Kesher said:


> My argument misrepresented or misunderstood: perhaps a bit of both.



Of course, there's a third option...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 24, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> We are not talking about disinhibition though; alcohol is a disinhibitor, as evidence by the drunken antics in any town centre at closing time; we are talking about an anaesthetic, which alcohol is when ingested in large quantity. There is no difference between a scumbag that dopes somebody with Rohypnol, and a scumbag that shags someone who is unconscious due to excess alcohol.



There's a very obvious difference. The former shows *intent* to commit an act of aggravated rape, the latter does not necessarily do so, unless the rapist has been engaged in "feeding" the alcohol to the victim.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 24, 2016)

Care to admit you were wrong about women never being prosecuted for raping a man Sasaferrato?


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 24, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Yes indeed, rape convictions are not easily got. Perhaps it is time that the height of the bar was looked at.


You might want to read some of the threads on urban about convictions for rape- it's not about the height of the bar.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Apr 24, 2016)

This is well worth a read - Not Worth Reporting: women's experiences of alcohol and sexual violence - its based on a survey of survivors of rape or sexual assault where either the victim and/or the perpetrator were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the assault, and it also contains a discussion on the law on capacity to consent and various feminst approaches to the issue.  

A couple of things stand out - the first is around survivor's views on their capacity to consent: Most survivors rejected the notion that it was only at the point of losing consciousness that a person loses their ability to consent to sex.  Many survivors were also clear that there would be capacity to consent at some levels of intoxication.  When survivors were asked about their symptoms of intoxication and whether they thought they had capacity to consent at the time of the assault
"there was a clear relationship between some effects of substances and survivors’ perceptions of whether they had the ability to communicate consent.  ...being unconscious, blacking out, having no memory of what happened, not being able to move or speak, feeling confused, vomiting and falling asleep were associated with a belief that they were probably or definitely unable to communicate consent at the time of the assault.  Conversely, experiencing none of the effects listed, feeling physically sensitive to touch, feeling  anxious or panicky and having no sense of time were associated with believing that they were probably or definitely able to communicate their consent at the time they were attacked."​Therefore many survivors seem to understand the point where someone begins to lose capacity to consent as when a certain level of intoxication is reached, which can indicated by a range of symptoms.

The second point is
"that victims and survivors who consumed substances before the assault frequently face even greater barriers to achieving justice than survivors who had not been drinking or taken drugs. They also experience additional stigma and disbelief about the harm they have experienced if substances were consumed prior to them being sexually assaulted or raped."​


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 24, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> You might want to read some of the threads on urban about convictions for rape- it's not about the height of the bar.



If the height of the bar were the only major issue, many more convictions would be secured, wouldn't they?

As it is, complaints have to get past the dead weight of institutional sexism *throughout* the criminal justice establishment; past the - thoroughly understandable - fear of hostile cross-examination (which can do as much psychological damage as the actual rape); past the everyday prejudices of the jury, and past the survivor's ability to see all that through while dealing with physical and emotional trauma.


----------



## toggle (Apr 24, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Yes indeed, rape convictions are not easily got. Perhaps it is time that the height of the bar was looked at.



changing the height of the bar will amnke the situation worse. the issue is society's attitude towards women and rape myths


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 24, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's a very obvious difference. The former shows *intent* to commit an act of aggravated rape, the latter does not necessarily do so, unless the rapist has been engaged in "feeding" the alcohol to the victim.



Indeed, and quite how do you prove that?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 24, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> Care to admit you were wrong about women never being prosecuted for raping a man Sasaferrato?



Don't recall it as an absolute. Can you quote a case? Extremely rare one would have thought.

male on male rape, on the other hand, is much less rare.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 24, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Indeed, and quite how do you prove that?



In the usual way - by questioning any witnesses, by checking past behaviour, and a host of other investigative techniques.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 24, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Don't recall it as an absolute. Can you quote a case? Extremely rare one would have thought.
> 
> male on male rape, on the other hand, is much less rare.


I already have, in response to your original bold absolute statement.  it's the Joyce McKinney case from 1978. I suggest you Google it.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 24, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> You might want to read some of the threads on urban about convictions for rape- it's not about the height of the bar.



Well, it is really. 

I don't think that the figures quoted re rape are a fantasy, if anything, there is evidence to suggest that they are under-reported, but
conviction rates are woeful, so something needs to change. 

The big problem with rape is its isolation, there generally aren't any witnesses. many times, the physical evidence has not been gathered, and you have a 'circumstantial evidence' case, and a 'He did it' 'I didn't' scenario. The person with the best barrister, and the more convincing demeanour usually wins. Sadly, often that is not the woman who has been raped. I felt that in a couple of sexual abuse cases, the judge was remiss in not pointing out to the jury that the accused were actors, effectively, people who lie for a living.

Then law is changing, albeit very slowly. The introduction of the offence of rape within marriage was long overdue, why on earth should any human being be forced to have sex, and have no redress in law. The cessation of allowing the complainant to be badgered and harassed over their past sexual history, is also good. (Yes, I do know that judges have an immense amount of discretion.) There was dreadful case in Scotland, where a rape victim had to display the underwear she was wearing that night, to the court. The girl committed suicide a while after the case. 

What are your views on, the suggestion that those accused of rape should be anonymous, unless convicted? It is a heinous crime, and mud sticks. There is an argument that naming the person sometimes brings out other accusers, but they could come forward after the trial, if the man is convicted, very probably with a stronger case.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 24, 2016)

I also suggest you actually read what people post in response to your throwaway statements - what you assert to be the case is usually refuted by others who have done their research.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 24, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Well, it is really.
> 
> I don't think that the figures quoted re rape are a fantasy, if anything, there is evidence to suggest that they are under-reported, but
> conviction rates are woeful, so something needs to change.
> ...


Dear God I suggest you actually read what I've posted on urban with regards to rape and sexually violent crime reporting instead of patronising me some some fucking noob.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 24, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> Care to admit you were wrong about women never being prosecuted for raping a man Sasaferrato?



I said: '
I do see what you are getting at, and I don't disagree. I cannot however, recall a case where a woman has been prosecuted for having sex with a passed out man.'

That is exactly what I said. Your absolute must be different from mine, that ain't an absolute.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 24, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> Dear God I suggest you actually read what I've posted on urban with regards to rape and sexually violent crime reporting instead of patronising me some some fucking noob.



Have you been drinking or something? Why the drastic response? If you don't like what I post, don't read it. My beliefs are honestly held. I am appalled by the present situation, where conviction rates are dismal.


----------



## Athos (Apr 24, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Well, it is really.
> 
> I don't think that the figures quoted re rape are a fantasy, if anything, there is evidence to suggest that they are under-reported, but
> conviction rates are woeful, so something needs to change.
> ...



No, the big problem with rape is the attitude of those men who do it.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 24, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> I already have, in response to your original bold absolute statement.  it's the Joyce McKinney case from 1978. I suggest you Google it.



On 19 September 1977 McKinney was arrested and charged, but vigorously denied the charges. While being taken to Epsom for a court appearance, she held a notice up at the window of the police vehicle saying, "Kirk left with me willingly!"[9] Press reports and McKinney's lawyer refer to the size differential between McKinney, described as slightly built, and Anderson, described as substantially larger.[10][11]

Along with Keith May, her co-conspirator, McKinney jumped bail and fled the country.[12] On 18 July 1979, they were both arrested in the United States by the FBI on charges of making false statements in order to obtain passports.[13] They both received suspended sentences.[14]

No extradition proceedings were instituted by Britain, and the English court sentenced McKinney _in absentia_ to a year in jail.[15] Under the then-Sexual Offences Act 1956, due to the victim's gender, there was no crime of rape committed, though indecent assault of a man applied


----------



## Athos (Apr 24, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Yes indeed, rape convictions are not easily got. Perhaps it is time that the height of the bar was looked at.



No, that would be a very dangerous precedent if, for instance, the standard of proof was lowered, or the burden of proof reversed. Rather, rape should be handled equally well as other serious crimes, end-to-end throughout the criminal justice system. That equality will only come when the system, and, more importantly, the society that shapes it, holds the victims of rape i.e. predominantly women, in the same esteem as it holds men (the overwhelming majority of perpetrators).


----------



## Sasaferrato (Apr 24, 2016)

Athos said:


> No, the big problem with rape is the attitude of those men who do it.



Yes, it is. That can be addressed by education.

Do you think that online porn is a factor? Not perhaps as an instant trigger, but the portrayal of women as 'things', rather than human beings?


----------



## toggle (Apr 24, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Yes, it is. That can be addressed by education.
> 
> Do you think that online porn is a factor? Not perhaps as an instant trigger, but the portrayal of women as 'things', rather than human beings?



porn isn't the cause, it's a reflection of attitudes that were there long before the internet


----------



## Athos (Apr 24, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Yes, it is. That can be addressed by education.
> 
> Do you think that online porn is a factor? Not perhaps as an instant trigger, but the portrayal of women as 'things', rather than human beings?



I'm no expert, but my instinct is that it is both a cause and effect of men's attitudes towards women.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 24, 2016)

If it's bunfight time I'll allow Bellend's stuff again.

I've got tabs at the bottom of the page saying "show ignored content" and I haven't got anyone else on ignore.

He's probably lying about other posters, so just check out what he's saying. It'll almost certainly be a mendacious representation of what has _actually_ been said.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 24, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Have you been drinking or something? Why the drastic response? If you don't like what I post, don't read it. My beliefs are honestly held. I am appalled by the present situation, where conviction rates are dismal.


As is well documented on urban, I do not drink and have not drunk alcohol in over 20 years.

I made the response because once again, long after many of the posters have been having the discussion,  you pipe up in your usual ill-informed way telling us how it is.  Maybe I get fed up with men telling me why the rape conviction rate is so low. I know why it's so low, thanks. Your comments add nothing new to the debate. Plus I get sick of answering the same questions over and over.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 24, 2016)

And McKinney forced a man to have sex with her against his will - she chained him up, in fact. It might not have legally been rape as the crime of a man raping a woman did not exist under the statute at the time, but it fits the current definition.  what would you have called it?


----------



## Athos (Apr 24, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> And McKinney forced a man to have sex with her against his will - she chained him up, in fact. It might not have legally been rape as the crime of a man raping a woman did not exist under the statute at the time, but it fits the current definition.  what would you have called it?



I'm not sure it'd be a rape, now. Section 1 of the 2003 act requires penetration with a penis. The only way a woman could be convicted of rape is if she was an accessory e.g. holding a woman down whilst a man raped her. I don't know a lot about the case mentioned, but, from your description of what happened, it's not obvious it'd be a rape now.


----------



## bimble (Apr 24, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope. The idea that it can *lower* someone's capacity is. If "legal guidelines" stated that it can "temporarily erase" (they state nothing of the sort) capacity, then they would be wrong on a point of fact.
> If you're going to be disputatious, it's best to be sure of your arguments first.


I was remembering the bit (from article about the Bree case) where it says "_it further recognises that *the capacity to consent may evaporate* well before a complainant becomes unconscious." _So it was evaporate not erase, your honour.

Interesting to see that article is cited in the piece crossthebreeze linked to up there.
As crossthebreeze's link summarises "her idea is that *the law should be changed so that it is unreasonable to believe that an intoxicated person has consented*".

That's where I have a problem.
I reckon my confusion with this whole subject is this: I _*(probably mistakenly)* _see this debate as a dichotomy between personal autonomy and victimhood.
That's a totally shit choice, nobody should have to make that choice.

In my head, personal autonomy is a hard won really valuable thing when it comes to women and sex. The downside is it comes with a massive weight of watching my back, checking my choices, bailing out quickly of any situation that I think may leave me in harms way;
It means for instance saying no when a man I don't know offers to buy me a drink in a bar, because that might just possibly lead to all sorts of hassle- Policing my own behaviour all the time calculating risk etc. Its no fun at all, it's crap, i'm not proud of it and wouldn't wish it on anyone else.

But the other side of this is the idea that *a drunk woman's actions are not the actions and judgements of a fully responsible adult person whilst a man's actions (however pissed they may be) are* - that means that a woman is less adult less responsible, less free -  less of a whole person in the eyes of the law than a man.

I'd really like to live in a world where I'd feel free to dance through the streets of London in my underwear pissed off my head singing and not fear that I'd be sexually attacked. That's the sort of thing a man could arguably do, on a stag night or after a match and he might lose his wallet or whatever but wouldn't have being raped as a major concern in his head. But we don't live in that world, at least not yet.
What I can't quite yet get behind is the idea that women should _act as if _we already live in that ideal world, that the law should put soft corners on things so as to allow us to behave as though the world is not full of fucked up predatory men when it so obviously still is.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 24, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> You're wrong,  it does happen - it's rare,  but does happen. In the UK the most well-known case of this kind is the Joyce McKinney case, who was prosecuted and jailed in 1978 for forcing a man to have sex with her against his will.
> 
> And it is physiologically possible - I would expect you to know that, given you were a nurse.
> 
> Next time, try Googling before posting to avoid Pickman's model posting more pictures of diggers.


Wrong.

Joyce McKinney was convicted of indecent assault.

_Rape_ can only be committed by woman if she has a dick.

What was that about diggers?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 24, 2016)

Athos said:


> I'm not sure it'd be a rape, now.


It wouldn't be now and it wasn't then.


----------



## bimble (Apr 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> It wouldn't be now and it wasn't then.


 So .. in the law if a man and a woman have had sex, even if lets imagine he was completely off his head pissed and she was stone cold sober, he's still always fully consented no question about it? ok.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 24, 2016)

Athos said:


> I'm not sure it'd be a rape, now. Section 1 of the 2003 act requires penetration with a penis. The only way a woman could be convicted of rape is if she was an accessory e.g. holding a woman down whilst a man raped her. I don't know a lot about the case mentioned, but, from your description of what happened, it's not obvious it'd be a rape now.


I think it would be considered by many to be rape given that statute is 13 years old and attitudes have moved on. Morally at least.


----------



## Athos (Apr 24, 2016)

bimble said:


> So .. in the law men can't ever have nonconsensual sex with a woman? That's not good, is it?


It would still be an offence, just not rape, which is very phallo-centrically defined.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 24, 2016)

bimble said:


> So .. in the law men can't ever have nonconsensual sex with a woman? That's not good, is it?


Well afaia the law requires that a _penis_ penetrate an orifice for _rape _to occur.


----------



## Athos (Apr 24, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> I think it would be considered by many to be rape given that statute is 13 years old and attitudes have moved on. Morally at least.


Morally, yes. Legally, no. I don't think you're right to say that case meets the current definition, if you mean the legal definition (which the context of your comment implied).


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 24, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> Care to admit you were wrong about women never being prosecuted for raping a man Sasaferrato?



I guess you'll be revising this then, EG?


----------



## bimble (Apr 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well afaia the law requires that a _penis_ penetrate an orifice for _rape _to occur.


Didn't know that and it saddens me. Kind of underlines the problem (in my head) of women being less adult free responsible persons who act consciously out of their own free will than people with penises are, legally speaking.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 24, 2016)

bimble said:


> So .. in the law if a man and a woman have had sex, even if lets imagine he was completely off his head pissed and she was stone cold sober, he's still always fully consented no question about it? ok.


No. Obviously a woman can sexually assault a man and I'm sure there are consent issues that would aggravate any such assault. I'd have to have a look if you want more than that.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 24, 2016)

bimble said:


> Didn't know that and it saddens me. Kind of underlines the problem (in my head) of women being less adult free responsible persons who act consciously out of their own free will than people with penises are, legally speaking.


Welcome to the patriarchy.


----------



## Athos (Apr 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I guess you'll be revising this then, EG?


I'm not sure that equationgirl's statement is wrong. Women can be convicted of rape, where they act as accessories e.g. in a gang situation. I only know of cases where women have been convicted in this way when the victims were also women, but the fact that I don't know if any with male victims doesn't mean there aren't any.


----------



## Athos (Apr 24, 2016)

bimble said:


> So .. in the law if a man and a woman have had sex, even if lets imagine he was completely off his head pissed and she was stone cold sober, he's still always fully consented no question about it? ok.


No. If he was so drunk as to be incapable of consent, and if she didn't have a reasonable belief in consent, it'd be a sexual assault under s.3 of the 2003 act.


----------



## bimble (Apr 24, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> Welcome to the patriarchy.


 But .. what to do? Do you think its a good idea to say that a drunk woman's consent is not legal consent, drunk women are not competent responsible adults under the law but drunk men are ?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 24, 2016)

Athos said:


> Women can be convicted of rape, where they act as accessories e.g. in a gang situation. I know of cases where women have been convicted in this way when the victims are also women, but the fact that I don't know if any with male victims doesn't mean there aren't any.


As accessories or under JE, perhaps. But that's not what EG meant, hence the mistaken McKinney reference


----------



## Athos (Apr 24, 2016)

bimble said:


> But .. what to do? Do you think its a good idea to say that a drunk woman's consent is not legal consent, drunk women are not competent responsible adults under the law but drunk men are ?


That's not what the law says.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 24, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Well, it is really.
> 
> I don't think that the figures quoted re rape are a fantasy, if anything, there is evidence to suggest that they are under-reported, but
> conviction rates are woeful, so something needs to change.
> ...



The big problem isn't that rape often takes place "behind closed doors", it's that in the entire criminal justice system, there's no crimes as consistently-poorly policed and tried by badly-educated people, as major sexual assaults. Even where advances have been made - same sex police contact, rape suites staffed by same sex as victim etc, we're still in an age where over 70% of complainants whose complaints  get passed by the police to the CPS, and are actioned by the CPS, drop their complaints because of the psychological trauma the complaint adds to that already suffered through the sexual assault.
On top of this, once it gets in front of a judge there's - as I mentioned earlier - a tactic among defence lawyers of questioning the victim with extreme hostility, with sexual history brought up (even though not allowed, an effective barrister will find a "side-door" through which to introduce the subject) and aspersions cast on honesty and morality, usually by someone of the same sex as the person that attacked you, if you're a woman.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 24, 2016)

.


Spymaster said:


> Well afaia the law requires that a _penis_ penetrate an orifice for _rape _to occur.



At the time of McKinney had you forced your dick into someone's mouth against their will that would not have been rape either.

So that's OK then?

Or does the law perhaps need to catch up?


----------



## bimble (Apr 24, 2016)

Athos said:


> That's not what the law says.


I thought it did say that. I thought the legal advice to jury was that it should consider whether a reasonable  person would reasonably assume that consent was given and was valid, and that the jury should not consider how pissed the man making that judgement about the other persons state of mind might have been at the time. Is that wrong?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 24, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> At the time of McKinney had you forced your dick into someone's mouth against their will that would not have been rape either.
> 
> So that's OK then?
> 
> Or does the law perhaps need to catch up?


Eh?

WTF?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Eh?
> 
> WTF?



At the time of the case that equationgirl mentioned, forced oral copulation was not considered rape.

It is now.

The fact that a woman forcibly fucking a man is still not rape is soley down to the fact that it is a very rare event and parliament's time is limited enough not to pass laws against very rare events when sexual assault will cover it. 

Doesn't make it not rape though, or do you contest that it does?


----------



## toggle (Apr 24, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> The big problem isn't that rape often takes place "behind closed doors", it's that in the entire criminal justice system, there's no crimes as consistently-poorly policed and tried by badly-educated people, as major sexual assaults. Even where advances have been made - same sex police contact, rape suites staffed by same sex as victim etc, we're still in an age where over 70% of complainants whose complaints  get passed by the police to the CPS, and are actioned by the CPS, drop their complaints because of the psychological trauma the complaint adds to that already suffered through the sexual assault.
> On top of this, once it gets in front of a judge there's - as I mentioned earlier - a tactic among defence lawyers of questioning the victim with extreme hostility, with sexual history brought up (even though not allowed, an effective barrister will find a "side-door" through which to introduce the subject) and aspersions cast on honesty and morality, usually by someone of the same sex as the person that attacked you, if you're a woman.



in front of the attacker. 

it's only relatively recently that those accused of rape were barred from questioning the victim. 

only last year that it became a policy to inform victims of some of what they could expect in court.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 24, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> At the time of the case that equationgirl mentioned, forced oral copulation was not considered rape.
> 
> It is now.
> 
> ...



Has a woman ever been _convicted of rape _in the UK?


----------



## toggle (Apr 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Has a woman ever been _convicted of rape _in the UK?



yes.


----------



## bimble (Apr 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Has a woman ever been _convicted of rape _in the UK?


of another woman, yes. don't know about of a bloke.


----------



## Athos (Apr 24, 2016)

bimble said:


> I thought it did say that. I thought the legal advice to jury was that it should consider whether a reasonable  person would reasonably assume that consent was given and was valid, and that the jury should not consider how pissed the man making that judgement about the other persons state of mind might have been at the time. Is that wrong?


First, that's not the same thing as saying that "drunk women are not competent responsible adults... but drunk men are." Secondly, the test isn't about drunkenness, but capacity to consent. Whilst it's possible that a man could rape someone whilst being so drunk as to not know what he's doing, a policy decision has been made to prevent voluntary intoxication being used as a defence, throughout the criminal law, for obvious reasons. Thirdly, the law would (in theory, at least) convict the sober women who had sex with a man too drunk to consent, under e.g. s.3.  The gender of the offender isn't the issue for the black letter of the law.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Has a woman ever been _convicted of rape _in the UK?



I think so, but only as an accessory, there is just such a case going through the courts now in the US, a woman streamed her BF raping someone.

Why does it bother you if the charge was rape or sexual assault though? What Max Clifford did was rape, but he could only be tried for sexual assault. Would you defend him as a non-rapist cos the law cannot define him as a rapist?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 24, 2016)

toggle said:


> yes.


Of raping a man, I mean.

When, where, links, etc, etc,...?


----------



## Athos (Apr 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Has a woman ever been _convicted of rape _in the UK?


Claire Marsh, 2001, London.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 24, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> ... but only as an accessory ....


 Piss off!

That's not at all the context being discussed. Nice try though!


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 24, 2016)

Athos said:


> Claire Marsh, 2001, London.


Woman - woman.


----------



## bimble (Apr 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Of raping a man, I mean.
> 
> When, where, links, etc, etc,...?


I'm ok with the fact that you might have to go to pay per view sites to find what you're looking for. 
But am not ok with the idea that voluntary consumption of alcohol by men is irrelevant in the law to their consequent actions whilst that's not true for women.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Piss off!
> 
> That's not at all the context being discussed. Nice try though!



The second part of the post is the pertinent part; why are you so keen to make out that there is a difference between sexual assault and rape? Why are you defending rapists like Max Clifford when they forced their dicks in to people's mouths against their will? It's a bit of a creepy position to adopt.


----------



## toggle (Apr 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Of raping a man, I mean.
> 
> When, where, links, etc, etc,...?




i know of several cases where women have been convicted of raping boys. you can look those up if you want to. im not going there tonight.


----------



## Athos (Apr 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Woman - woman.


You asked if a woman had been convicted of rape in the UK. I have gave you an example.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 24, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The second part of the post is the pertinent part; why are you so keen to make out that there is a difference between sexual assault and rape?


I'm not. I couldn't give a fuck about it.

But equationgirl clearly challenged another poster's assertion that 'no woman had been convicted of *raping* a *man*' . She then erroneously cited the case of McKinney and arrogantly badgered the other poster to respond to her.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 24, 2016)

toggle said:


> i know of several cases where women have been convicted of raping boys. you can look those up if you want to. im not going there tonight.


No, I'm not looking them up. I'll let you provide those, thanks!

I'll remind you every now and then too, if you forget.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 24, 2016)

Athos said:


> You asked if a woman had been convicted of rape in the UK. I have gave you an example.


Don't bother.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 24, 2016)

off the sitter list or the safe to get drunk with list

Ched
Johnson
Danczuk


Of course the law says harrumph harrumph fuck their law. We know Ched did a dirty and abusive session on someone far down on the social rung from him and without the capital-social and fiscal- to defend against these dirty cunts like his gf digging around with PI's using big money to pressure a re-trial. We know she didn't report it as rape, the cps ran with that. She fled the fucking country and took another name.

But by all means lets debate the meaning of rape as defined by a law none of us finds acceptable. For fucks sake


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 24, 2016)

GOOGLEGOOGLEGOOGLEGOOGLE ....

Come on!

SOME woman must have been done for raping a man _somewhere!!!!!!_


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I'm not. I couldn't give a fuck about it.
> 
> But equationgirl clearly challenged another poster's assertion that 'no woman had been convicted of *raping* a man' . She then erroneously cited the case of McKinney and arrogantly badgered the other poster to respond to her mistake.



And you will not let up on badgering about it.

the case she mentioned was sexual assault. By any standards it would be rape. However the law does not define it as rape at that time, as it did not forced oral copulation. If sexual assault such as that become more commonplace I am sure the law will be amended to classify that as rape. Choosing to make out that there is some point worth noting about the difference just makes you seem a bit...tbf.


----------



## toggle (Apr 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> But by all means lets debate the meaning of rape as defined by a law none of us finds acceptable. For fucks sake



this.

if the law is unable to prosecute a serious sexual violation that isnt penile penetration as rape, then the law is an ass.


----------



## toggle (Apr 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> GOOGLEGOOGLEGOOGLEGOOGLE ....
> 
> Come on!
> 
> SOME woman must have been done for raping a man _somewhere!!!!!!_



us laws can be less discriminatory. 

but i think eg was right. i'd consider the case that she described as a rape.


----------



## bimble (Apr 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> But by all means lets debate the meaning of rape as defined by a law none of us finds acceptable. For fucks sake



If its ok with with you yes please.  Famous footballers make news makes discussion. I don't have a clue what happened in that hotel room & won't be opining on that specific case ever but do feel that there are things here worth trying to talk about, on the anonymous internets, things that are hard to talk about in real life.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 24, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And you will not let up on badgering about it.
> 
> the case she mentioned was sexual assault. By any standards it would be rape. However the law dis not define it as rape at that time, as it did not forced oral copulation. If sexual assault such as that become more commonplace I am sure the law will be amended to classify that as rape. Choosing to make out that there is some point worth noting about the difference just makes you seem a bit...tbf.


Sass said no woman had been convicted of raping a man.

EG said "YOU ARE WRONG" and cited the case of Joyce McKinney. Joyce McKinney WAS NOT convicted of raping a man.

equationgirl then badgered Sass to respond to her nonsense.

She's an arse.

Now fuck off, ya dong.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Sass said no woman had been convicted of raping a man.
> 
> EG said "YOU ARE WRONG" and cited the case of Joyce McKinney. Joyce McKinney WAS NOT convicted of raping a man.
> 
> ...



Dong?

It is you who is going out of his way to defend those who rape. Seriously man, have a word, it's a very bad look.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 24, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It is you who is going out of his way to defend those who rape.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 24, 2016)

bimble said:


> I don't have a clue what happened in that hotel room...



You could have watched it all on live leak had his mates not fucked up their recording of the night's jolly japes.


----------



## Athos (Apr 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Sass said no woman had been convicted of raping a man.
> 
> EG said "YOU ARE WRONG" and cited the case of Joyce McKinney. Joyce McKinney WAS NOT convicted of raping a man.
> 
> ...



Yes, she was wrong. In fact, I pointed that out to her. But I didn't feel the need to be a dick about it.  Why not give it a rest?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


>



Roll yer eyes all you like. Getting hung up on the non-distinction between sexual assault and rape is a very odd thing to spend one's time doing. If it were your botty that were sore in 1984 I reckon you would not be so keen to make the distinction.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 24, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yes, she was wrong.


No shit?


> In fact, I pointed that out to her.


Well done. 


> But I didn't feel the need to be a dick about it.


She did!


> Why not give it a rest?


Why would I?


----------



## Athos (Apr 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Why would I?



Because you're coming across as a bit of prick.  Up to you, of course. No skin off my nose.


----------



## 8115 (Apr 24, 2016)

toggle said:


> this.
> 
> if the law is unable to prosecute a serious sexual violation that isnt penile penetration as rape, then the law is an ass.


I don't have a problem with the offences being different as long as the sentences are appropriate.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 24, 2016)

Athos said:


> Because you're coming across as a bit of prick.  Up to you, of course. No skin off my nose.



Cool.

Go fuck yourself then.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 24, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Getting hung up on the non-distinction between sexual assault and rape is a very odd thing to spend one's time doing.


Except you're the only tit doing that.

EG fucked up and said that Joyce McKinney had been convicted of raping a geezer. 

That's absolutely wrong. 

Now shut the fuck up.


----------



## Athos (Apr 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Cool.
> 
> Go fuck yourself then.


----------



## toggle (Apr 24, 2016)

8115 said:


> I don't have a problem with the offences being different as long as the sentences are appropriate.



the problem with having different names for offences is that it tells some victims and society that some rapes aren't proper rape. 

When the law won’t call it rape

thats a us article, but covers some of the issues of how victims feel about their rape not being called rape.


----------



## bimble (Apr 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> a dirty and abusive session on someone far down on the social rung from him


Is " a dirty and abusive session" a crime? Does your partner have to be of 'equal social rung' to you to make dirtiness ok?

Fessing up, cos it's late on a Sunday, and I've had a few drinks,  I'm probably what casually red would call a Sex Person - I like 'weird' sex sometimes, and some of what I want my friend to do to me sometimes is illegal, according to the strict letter of uk law. So yes, asking about the law is ok by me, the law is supposed to be there to help us, to define the contours of a moral world we want to live in, not to be some giant scary thing carved in stone that we're just subject to.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 24, 2016)

bimble said:


> Is " a dirty and abusive session" a crime? Does your partner have to be of 'equal social rung' to you to make dirtiness ok? I'm not sure how you define that and am bit worried.
> Fessing up, cos it's late on a Sunday, and I've had a few drinks,  I'm probably what casually red would call a Sex Person - I like 'weird' sex sometimes, and some of what I want my friend to do to me sometimes is illegal, according to the strict letter of uk law. So yes, asking about the law is ok by me, its supposed to help us, not to be some giant thing carved in stone that we have to just accept.


me too. I've left partners with bruises and so on, a fan of a bit of sub/dom play. Stops at the bedroom door, safe word etc.

but abusive should be the one ringing a bell for you. And Cheds activities had none of the things you expect from consensual cruelty but rather the hallmarks of actual sexual abuse. There is a difference and I'm not sure why you keep painting those who know where the lines are as somehow prude ascetics.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 24, 2016)

and expecting the law to be there to help us is why you get called liberal btw

all law is class law.


----------



## bimble (Apr 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm not sure why you keep painting those who know where the lines are as somehow prude ascetics.


Did i do that? I don't think so. If i did maybe you can show me where i've crossed the line. I don't think this is relevant at all to the alcohol consent discussion. & again, I have no clue and no opinion at all about the specific case of this footballer.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 24, 2016)

bimble said:


> Does your partner have to be of 'equal social rung' to you to make dirtiness ok?


this, this here, suggesting that because I mentioned the disparity in social standing between the two and its effect on the case I am somehow averse to inter-class shagging and whatever might go on between grown ups. What was that? Have I read you incorrectly here? But you should be able to follow the line from the alcohol discussions. Being a crap dom while drunk is totally not what ched and his mate got up to. I recon if we don't want to muddy the waters any more on this thread you should start an 'alcohol/drugs and consent' thread in the health and etc forum. Its certainly something to have a discussion about and I would be interested to see the thoughts of yourself and others but in cheds case the verdict from my five personalities says 'jail'


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Except you're the only tit doing that.
> 
> EG fucked up and said that Joyce McKinney had been convicted of raping a geezer.
> 
> ...



Oh OK. So where are you on Max Clifford being a rapist? Just for them lols and tha...


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 24, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So where are you on Max Clifford being a rapist?


Has he been convicted of rape?


----------



## bimble (Apr 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> this, this here, suggesting that because I mentioned the disparity in social standing between the two and its effect on the case I am somehow averse to inter-class shagging and whatever might go on between grown ups. What was that? Have I read you incorrectly here? But you should be able to follow the line from the alcohol discussions. Being a crap dom while drunk is totally not what ched and his mate got up to. I recon if we don't want to muddy the waters any more on this thread you should start an 'alcohol/drugs and consent' thread in the health and etc forum. Its certainly something to have a discussion about and I would be interested to see the thoughts of yourself and others but in cheds case the verdict from my five personalities says 'jail'



You have 5 personalities with all different regional accents and one safeword? But yes you're right, these my questions belong elsewhere because its nothing to do with the footballer. Would have to be totally sober and fully in command of my intentions to competently start a new thread on it though.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Has he been convicted of rape?



No.

Does that make him a non-rapist?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 24, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Does that make him a non-rapist?


Of course not.

Do you think he's a rapist then?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Of course not...



yes


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 24, 2016)

bimble said:


> You have 5 personalities with all different regional accents and one safeword? But yes you're right, these my questions belong elsewhere because its nothing to do with the footballer. Would have to be totally sober and fully in command of my intentions to competently start a new thread on it though.


man of many talents. Do start it tomorrow, I'd hope it will make for a good informative thread, I'll chip in but largely listen. Read. You know what I mean.


----------



## bimble (Apr 24, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> man of many talents. Do start it tomorrow, I'd hope it will make for a good informative thread, I'll chip in but largely listen. Read. You know what I mean.


What if you started the thread about interesting conversations about consent & freedom & the law . But no, of course that wouldn't work, because you're a boy so any discussion of pushing the boundaries of consent is my job.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 24, 2016)

bimble said:


> What if you started the thread about interesting conversations about consent. But no, of course that wouldn't work, because you're a boy so any discussion of pushing the boundaries of consent is my job.


s'not a job its a thread. Better coming from you anyway, its what you want to discuss rather than a case you admit to not knowing much about. Besides I am a boorish oaf and will no doubt forget what I was talking about by tomorrow so fill yer boots. but it would be an interesting discussion


----------



## bimble (Apr 24, 2016)

if any of you have got 4 minutes, maybe read this, because its brilliant and brave and talks to the gap which I think a lot of us not just me struggle with.
Me and the author are sort of internet friends -she's wonderful, she teaches consent classes for teenagers in the us and canada and she plays the drums.

*" I refuse to, for the sake of defending what’s right (e.g., unequivocal consent), paint everything else catastrophically. That is just not accurate. And those are not exclusive categories: I have more than two options beyond A (consensual sex) and B (rape of the spirit) and I want it acknowledged."..*

The Pressure to Never Have Unwanted Sex


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 25, 2016)

I think I'd be really fascinated, or possibly, enthralled, by belboid's input.


----------



## emanymton (Apr 25, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I think I'd be really fascinated, or possibly, enthralled, by belboid's input.


He hasn't actually posted anything for about 3 pages. At least we know you really have put him on ignore.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 25, 2016)

Surely women can rape as you don't need to use a penis to rape someone.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 25, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Surely women can rape as you don't need to use a penis to rape someone.


You do under UK law:



> *Rape*
> 
> (1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
> 
> ...



http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape/section/1


----------



## crossthebreeze (Apr 25, 2016)

bimble said:


> I was remembering the bit (from article about the Bree case) where it says "_it further recognises that *the capacity to consent may evaporate* well before a complainant becomes unconscious." _So it was evaporate not erase, your honour.
> 
> Interesting to see that article is cited in the piece crossthebreeze linked to up there.
> As crossthebreeze's link summarises "her idea is that *the law should be changed so that it is unreasonable to believe that an intoxicated person has consented*".
> ...



In that report I linked to, it was clear that where women saw that they did not have capacity to consent had nothing to do with the disinhibitory effects of alcohol or drugs - and everything to do with extreme effects on motor skills (which would stop someone from verbally or physically expressing or refusing consent) and effects on consciousness less than being unconscious - such as confusion (which would stop someone from understanding what was happening).  The report says that where current legislation and case law stands, someone would have to be almost unconscious for them to have a lack of capacity to consent.  Thre were also a number of women in the survey who thought that they did have capacity to consent at the time of the assault, despite being under the influence of drugs and alcohol (but reporting less of the extreme symptoms on motor skills or level of conciousness), but whose lack of consent was ignored by their attacker through force.  I think that most women - and men- do know the difference between being off their heads but having capacity to consent, and where they start to lose capacity because they can't express their consent or know what they are consenting to, and I think that most women - and men - know where their consent has been violated.

Note if someone has a range of drink or drug-related symptoms which means that they are  verbally or physically unable to express or refuse consent or understand what is happening, or unconcious, they are almost certainly not taking an active role in the sexual activity - so you are talking apples and oranges  - someone (male or female) to perpertrating rape or sexual assault is very unlikely to lack capacity at the time, even if they have taken drugs or alcohol.  And the reason we are mostly talking about men as perpetrators here, is that in many women's and men's experience, its largely men who are acting in a predatory way towards drunk/high women and men.  Of course women do perpetrate sexual assault or rape against women and men, but I've never (despite going to lots of lesbian clubs) seen women, for example, working together to pick out isolated, very drunk women or man in a nightclub, or seen a woman try to separate a very wasted woman or man from their friends, in the way I've seen men do this (and intervened), and I don't think many women are adjusting their behaviour in the ways you say you are doing because they are scared of predatory women (and I don't think many men are adjusting their behaviour in these ways at all).

Women from both groups (and the professionals surveyed) expressed problems with accessing justice, and additional stigma, to do with the fact they had drunk or taken drugs when the attack happened.  The problem is that women are blamed for their own rapes and sexual assaults, rather than that they are seen as having less responsibility.

You say that there are many measures you unfortunately have to take to keep safe.  Speak to most women, and they'll say the same thing.  But for loads of different reasons, not every woman will be able to take the same precautions as you - there may be some precautions that I take which you can't take.  And failing to take precautions does not make us responsible - morally or legally - if we are raped.  Its always the perpetrator who is responsible for rape or sexual assault (and perpetrators are not always men).  And here's the thing - we can take all the precautions that anyone could think of, and there's no guarantees that a predatory or aggressive man will not rape or assault us (and thats before we even think about predatory and violent women)!  This piece expresses what i'm trying to say.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Apr 25, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You do under UK law:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape/section/1


But there's also offences of sexual assault by penetration, sexual assault, and causing sexual activity without consent - which women can be accused of - and all will have similar issues around consent and capacity to consent.  And women have been convicted of rape when they have perpetrated alongside a man.  And both women and men can be the victims of all of these crimes including rape.  I'm not defending the law, just clarifying.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 25, 2016)

crossthebreeze said:


> But there's also offences of sexual assault by penetration, sexual assault, and causing sexual activity without consent - which women can be accused of - and all will have similar issues around consent and capacity to consent.  And women have been convicted of rape when they have perpetrated alongside a man.  And both women and men can be the victims of all of these crimes including rape.  I'm not defending the law, just clarifying.


Yes, we've discussed rape as an accessory or under JE.  As you say the non-consent crimes that women can be charged with are assault by penetration etc., but in the UK a woman cannot be individually charged with or convicted of _rape_. It's a legally defined term.


----------



## bimble (Apr 25, 2016)

crossthebreeze said:


> In that report I linked to, it was clear that where women saw that they did not have capacity to consent had nothing to do with the disinhibitory effects of alcohol or drugs - and everything to do with extreme effects on motor skills (which would stop someone from verbally or physically expressing or refusing consent) and effects on consciousness less than being unconscious - such as confusion (which would stop someone from understanding what was happening).  The report says that where current legislation and case law stands, someone would have to be almost unconscious for them to have a lack of capacity to consent.  Thre were also a number of women in the survey who thought that they did have capacity to consent at the time of the assault, despite being under the influence of drugs and alcohol (but reporting less of the extreme symptoms on motor skills or level of conciousness), but whose lack of consent was ignored by their attacker through force.  I think that most women - and men- do know the difference between being off their heads but having capacity to consent, and where they start to lose capacity because they can't express their consent or know what they are consenting to, and I think that most women - and men - know where their consent has been violated.
> 
> Note if someone has a range of drink or drug-related symptoms which means that they are  verbally or physically unable to express or refuse consent or understand what is happening, or unconcious, they are almost certainly not taking an active role in the sexual activity - so you are talking apples and oranges  - someone (male or female) to perpertrating rape or sexual assault is very unlikely to lack capacity at the time, even if they have taken drugs or alcohol.  And the reason we are mostly talking about men as perpetrators here, is that in many women's and men's experience, its largely men who are acting in a predatory way towards drunk/high women and men.  Of course women do perpetrate sexual assault or rape against women and men, but I've never (despite going to lots of lesbian clubs) seen women, for example, working together to pick out isolated, very drunk women or man in a nightclub, or seen a woman try to separate a very wasted woman or man from their friends, in the way I've seen men do this (and intervened), and I don't think many women are adjusting their behaviour in the ways you say you are doing because they are scared of predatory women (and I don't think many men are adjusting their behaviour in these ways at all).
> 
> ...



Totally spot on as usual crossthebreeze. My worry about women being seen as having less responsibility than men is just a load of theoretical tosh when you look at it next to the facts of what we're really talking about.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 25, 2016)

toggle said:


> this.
> 
> if the law is unable to prosecute a serious sexual violation that isnt penile penetration as rape, then the law is an ass.



IIRC current legislation encompasses penetration with penis, digits or objects rather than just penis, but it's still skewed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 25, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Sass said no woman had been convicted of raping a man.
> 
> EG said "YOU ARE WRONG" and cited the case of Joyce McKinney. Joyce McKinney WAS NOT convicted of raping a man.
> 
> ...



Quoted in the somewhat vain hope that in the morning you're feeling a little bit guilty for being such a wanker.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 25, 2016)

8115 said:


> I don't have a problem with the offences being different as long as the sentences are appropriate.



Well, that's part of the problem.
The criminal justice system treats rape (badly) as the "gold standard" of major sexual assaults, and sentences for other major sexual assaults are usually lesser, and some would say - including me - often inappropriate to the severity of the crime and the trauma it has caused.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 25, 2016)

bimble said:


> Is " a dirty and abusive session" a crime? Does your partner have to be of 'equal social rung' to you to make dirtiness ok?
> 
> Fessing up, cos it's late on a Sunday, and I've had a few drinks,  I'm probably what casually red would call a Sex Person - I like 'weird' sex sometimes, and some of what I want my friend to do to me sometimes is illegal, according to the strict letter of uk law. So yes, asking about the law is ok by me, the law is supposed to be there to help us, to define the contours of a moral world we want to live in, not to be some giant scary thing carved in stone that we're just subject to.



The lived reality for most of us *is* that the law is carved in stone, and is something we're subjected to, and expected to be complicit with.


----------



## Athos (Apr 25, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, we've discussed rape as an accessory or under JE.  As you say the non-consent crimes that women can be charged with are assault by penetration etc., but in the UK a woman cannot be individually charged with or convicted of _rape_. It's a legally defined term.



A woman could be individually charged with and convicted of rape.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 25, 2016)

Athos said:


> A woman could be individually charged with and convicted of rape.


How? Other than in concert with a man.


----------



## Athos (Apr 25, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> How?



A man and a woman commit a rape. He is not caught, but she is; she is charged and prosecuted individually i.e. without a co-defendant.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 25, 2016)

Yeah, righto.

The gymnastics to get here would be more convincing had you said they both get caught and charged but the bloke dies before he gets to court. The crime still needed a man.


----------



## Athos (Apr 25, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah, righto.
> 
> The gymnastics to get here would be more convincing had you said they both get caught and charged but the bloke dies before he gets to court. The crime still needed a man.



Yes, that would be another way of demonstrating that your claim was false.


----------



## Athos (Apr 25, 2016)

You see my point, though, about the tediousness of definitional hair-splitting?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 25, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yes, that would be another way of demonstrating that your claim was false.


I don't think so. I think she'd be charged as an accessory. 

Happy to see any case law you have to support your theory though.


----------



## Athos (Apr 25, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I don't think so. I think she'd be charged as an accessory.
> 
> Happy to see any case law you have to support your theory though.



There is no case law on that specific point,  either way. But no reason in principle why she wouldn't be charged alone. Individuals have been charged with e.g. conspiracy.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 25, 2016)

Athos said:


> There is no case law on that specific point,  either way.


Hmmmm


> But no reason in principle why she wouldn't be charged alone. Individuals have been charged with e.g. conspiracy.


But no lone female with rape.

I'm afraid you'll need to come up with something a bit better than 'it's never happened but it can because I say so' !


----------



## Athos (Apr 25, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I'm afraid you'll need to come up with something a bit better than 'it's never happened but it can because I say so' !


I have: I gave an analgous situation. Can you come up with anything to suggest it couldn't happen?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 25, 2016)

Athos said:


> I have: I gave an analgous situation.


So you have the absolute entire history of British law but can't give one single example of it ever happening, or anything other than analogy to suggest it could? 

And the fact still remains that no woman acting alone has ever been convicted of raping a man under UK law, nor could they.


----------



## belboid (Apr 25, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I think I'd be really fascinated, or possibly, enthralled, by belboid's input.


And you took me off ignore specifically to try and have a bun fight. Not content with being abusive towards women on a thread about rape (where you are, apparently, the only person who understands what it actually involves), you try to pick another fight. 

What a sad and nasty little man you are.


----------



## Athos (Apr 25, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> So you have the absolute entire history of British law but can't give one single example of it ever happening, or anything other than analogy to suggest it could?
> 
> And the fact still remains that no woman acting alone has ever been convicted of raping a man under UK law, nor could they.




The second part is correct. The first is correct insofar as it hasn't happened, but incorrect insofar as it couldn't.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 26, 2016)

Athos said:


> ....but incorrect insofar as it couldn't.


I don't think so. There's the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. If the bloke Is never tried he's legally presumed innocent so how can the woman be found guilty on a joint charge which absolutely requires the bloke's guilt?


----------



## Athos (Apr 26, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I don't think so. There's a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. If the bloke doesn't reach court he's legally presumed innocent so how can the woman be found guilty on a joint charge which absolutely requires the bloke's guilt?



In the same way that one of a number of conspirators can be found guilty! 

It'd be a matter for the jury.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 26, 2016)

Athos said:


> In the same way that one of a number of conspirators can be found guilty!
> .


It's not the same. The law does not require that you have a penis to commit conspiracy.


----------



## Athos (Apr 26, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> It's not the same. The law does not require that you have a penis to commit conspiracy.



No, but the requirement for two or more people to commit the offence doesn't preclude the possibility of prosecuting just one.

There's no way that, if a woman who'd taken part in a gang rape was caught, the law would allow her to walk because the rest of the gang hadn't been caught.

Notwithstanding that there's no specific precedent for this rape scenario, the similarity with conspiracy is enough to allow this.


----------



## Athos (Apr 26, 2016)

More's the point, the CPS guidance specifically addresses just this possibility:

(2) Where D assists or encourages P to commit a single crime 
In this scenario, P, with the fault element, carries out the conduct element 
alone. D is an accessory (assists or encourages the offence). D does not 
need to be present at the scene of the offence. Both are liable for the offence. 
P is liable as a principal. *Ds liability as a secondary party is based on proving: 
 P’s commission of the offence, although P need not be identified, 
charged or convicted. *(Note that where the offence is committed 
through the medium of an innocent agent, such as a child or any other 
person who is not criminally responsible, the person who incites the 
crime is liable as a principal.) 
 D giving assistance or encouragement to P: R v Clarkson [1971] 1 
WLR 1402; R v Jones and Mirrless (1977) 65 Cr. App. R. 250, CA. 
 D’s intent to assist or encourage: R v Clarkson; R v Jones and 
Mirrless. 
 D’s knowledge of the essential elements of P’s offence: Johnson v 
Youdon [1950] 1 K.B. 544, DC. The courts have interpreted 
knowledge broadly in this context. It has been held to include belief, 
contemplation or foresight that the essential elements might be 
committed. See para 8.4.2.2 of Smith and Hogan’s Criminal Law (13th
ed, 2011) for a detailed commentary.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 26, 2016)

Athos said:


> More's the point, the CPS guidance specifically addresses just this possibility:
> 
> (2) Where D assists or encourages P to commit a single crime
> In this scenario, P, with the fault element, carries out the conduct element
> ...



So, re your highlighted part, how do you _*legally* *prove*_ that X raped Y, without trying him? He doesn't get a chance to defend himself.

The fact that this has never, ever happened in the case of rape, speaks volumes.


----------



## Athos (Apr 26, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> So, re your highlighted part, how do you _*legally* *prove*_ that X raped Y, without trying him? He doesn't get a chance to defend himself.
> 
> The fact that this has never, ever happened in the case of rape, speaks volumes.



You are desperately clutching at straws. You would prove it the same way so you would with other abetting offences; the CPS guidance specifically envisages exactly that scenario i.e. Where the principal's guilt is proven, without him having to be convicted, or even identified. It's a matter of evidence, for a jury. 

The fact that it's never happened is because it's a very, very unlikely set of circumstances; how often do you think a woman artists in a rape, and is caught but the man is not. 

But it remains the case that it absolutely could happen; you have the law wrong, here.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 26, 2016)

Athos said:


> You are desperately clutching at straws.
> 
> The fact that it's never happened is because it's a very, very unlikely set of circumstances; how often do you think a woman artists in a rape, and is caught but the man is not.


You're desperately trying to manufacture ridiculous scenarios to suit your agenda! 

I've no idea how often the circumstances you suggest have occurred but I'd think it likely that a woman and a man may have been jointly charged with rape and he's died before prosecution or otherwise avoided trial. 

Yet still no cases of a lone woman being convicted of rape. Ever.


----------



## Athos (Apr 26, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You're desperately trying to manufacture ridiculous scenarios to suit your agenda!
> 
> I've no idea how often the circumstances you suggest have occurred but I'd think it likely that a woman and a man may have been jointly charged with rape and he's died before prosecution or otherwise avoided trial.
> 
> Yet still no cases of a lone woman being convicted of rape. Ever.



But surely you understand that, just because something *hasn't* happened, it doesn't mean it *can't *in law. 

Given the tiny number of women who have been prosecuted alongside one or more men, what makes you think that there are similar cases in which all the men involved have died?  On what basis do you think that 'likely'?

I've shown you the CPS guidance which very clearly explains that the principal doesn't have to be convicted for the accessory to be convicted of the same offence. Are you saying that's wrong? Or that it doesn't apply to rape? If the latter, why?

The answer cannot be that the principal offence requires a penis, because the whole point of the doctrine of joint enterprise is to allow conviction of people who don't satisfy the requirements for the substantive offence in their own right (because, if they did, there'd be no need for it).

If you think there's any reason in law why a woman can't be prosecuted individually (which would mean a conviction for rape, by virtue of her role in the joint enterprise), please explain; please don't repeat the logically nonsensical 'argument' that it can't happen because it hasn't.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 26, 2016)

Two men talking about whether women can rape men on a thread about a man who raped a woman. Shabby.


----------



## Athos (Apr 26, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Two men talking about whether women can rape men on a thread about a man who raped a woman. Shabby.



No. One man telling another man why the arguments he was using to have a pop at a woman on a thread about rape are wrong.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 26, 2016)

Athos said:


> No. One man telling another man why the arguments he was using to have a pop at a woman on a thread about rape are wrong.


Well that stands regardless of what you and I agree or disagree on. 

It was clearly stated that women have been prosecuted for raping men. They haven't.

I will however, apologise to equationgirl for the aggressive manner in which I made that point on Sunday night.


----------



## Athos (Apr 26, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well that stands regardless of what you and I agree or disagree on.
> 
> It was clearly stated that women have been prosecuted for raping men. They haven't.
> 
> I will however, apologise to equationgirl for the aggressive manner in which I made that point on Sunday night.



Yes, I've never argued that they have, merely that they could be, even to the extent of standing trial alone (albeit they couldn't commit the offence alone). 

You're right to apologise, though.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 27, 2016)

Thank you for your apology Spymaster.


----------



## toggle (Apr 27, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Two men talking about whether women can rape men on a thread about a man who raped a woman. Shabby.



not really a problem. if there is a real or perceived gender bias in the law then it should be discussed. it needs to be discussed. because those ideas on how the law may be unfair is likely to hinder achieving justice for victims. that discussion is far less offensive than the people who have heard the misinformation spread about this case and come here to cast aspersion on the victim.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 27, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> Thank you for your apology Spymaster.


Thanks for accepting it.


----------



## toggle (Apr 27, 2016)

don't know why you liked my last post. you were one of the people i had in mind when i commented on those who had made offensive assertions about the victim



1927 said:


> I haven't read the whole thread so apologise if this hasn't been mentioned earlier.
> 
> The Birmingham 6 were found guilty and expressed no remorse, would everyone hold the same opinion about their lack of remorse in light of what we know now.?
> 
> There is something about this case that doesn't ring true with me, not least the fact that it is alleged that the victim had previously made rape allegations against 2 other prominent sportsman , one a cricketer and one a rugby league player!


----------



## Grandma Death (Apr 27, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> If that were the case then McDonald would have been convicted too. As Athos has pointed out several times, the bloke can have a reasonable belief that she consented, even if in fact she actually hadn't.



Course a man can think he has reasonable belief he had consent-but equally I think its unreasonable and wrong on all levels for a man to not realise consent is a moving feast. So how a woman may behave at the start of the night is different to whats shes like at the end of the night. Lets put it this way-if a woman I met was all over me and begging me for sex-if by the end of the night she was in such a knot I wouldnt assume I could have sex with her based on her behaviour several hours previously.


----------



## belboid (May 27, 2016)

Rapist to be retried in October - Ched Evans: Footballer's rape retrial in October - BBC News


----------



## Wilf (Jun 20, 2016)

Football, doing the right thing. 

Chesterfield sign Ched Evans three months before rape retrial begins


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2016)

Nothing wrong with that so long as he loses the job if he's found guilty. Unless you think that people awaiting trial should not be employed?


----------



## Wilf (Jun 20, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Nothing wrong with that so long as he loses the job if he's found guilty. Unless you think that people awaiting trial should not be employed?


 this case doesn't reduce itself down to that level of formality.  It's a high profile decision to employ someone who remains accused of rape - and to employ him in the run up to his trial.


----------



## belboid (Jun 20, 2016)

Hmm, I susp


Wilf said:


> this case doesn't reduce itself down to that level of formality.  It's a high profile decision to employ someone who remains accused of rape - and to employ him in the run up to his trial.


hmm, I suspect from that that I'm very grateful to have spewmaster on ignore 

For someone so prominently accused of rape to be offered a relatively high profile job in the run up to their trial is grotesquely unusual, to say the least.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 20, 2016)

belboid said:


> Hmm, I susp
> 
> hmm, I suspect from that that I'm very grateful to have spewmaster on ignore
> 
> For someone so prominently accused of rape to be offered a relatively high profile job in the run up to their trial is grotesquely unusual, to say the least.


Indeed. This isn't someone with no savings, getting a normal job, incidentally in the run up to a trial. It's high profile and hard not to read as anything other than a statement of confidence in him.  Of course, formally it isn't that - it's just crude self interest by Chesterfield, getting in before other clubs. However, in the circumstances of this case, it's a very public process of normalisation for him.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 20, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Football, doing the right thing.
> 
> Chesterfield sign Ched Evans three months before rape retrial begins





Spymaster said:


> Nothing wrong with that so long as he loses the job if he's found guilty. Unless you think that people awaiting trial should not be employed?


There's nothing wrong with it, in a "can't touch me for it, coppah!" sense, but, when viewed against the general mentality that the football industry and its fans tend to display towards sexual assaults, it's hard not to think that it fits in to that mentality rather seamlessly. Most organisations, particularly ones so much in the public eye as a football club, would be very uncomfortable about employing someone who has admitted some pretty discreditable behaviour, even if he is denying actual rape.

One would have thought that football in general, given the prevalence of footballers involved in sexual assault cases (there's a selection here: List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), not to mention the plethora of other convictions for serious offences, would be wanting to put their house in order and presenting a picture of at least some degree of probity.

Instead of which, they seem to be immune to any suggestion that it's not just about whether someone got convicted, but maybe about their standard of behaviour in general.

In most professional professions (I'll try not to snobbishly excuse footballers from that), a remotely credible allegation would be enough to take them out of circulation until they'd been cleared of wrongdoing, and morally dubious behaviour, regardless of conviction, would be reason enough to disbar them.

Football seems to take a bit of a Norman Fletcher ("Porridge") approach to the whole thing - you get punished for getting caught, not for the offence, and it's all somehow someone else's fault/problem.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 20, 2016)

He'll either be found guilty, in which case Chesterfield will have to sack him or deal with having a (twice) convicted rapist on the squad. Or he'll be found not guilty. If the latter we'll only know what he's used for the appeal at his new trial, I suspect it will turn out to be something pretty dubious or else it would have been offered as a defense at the first trial, and they'll have to deal with having a cunt on their squad who's wormed his way out of a rape charge. Either way Chesterfield are hardly going to cover themselves in glory here, but as long as they can get their grubby mitts on some lucre they will.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> ... If the latter we'll only know what he's used for the appeal at his new trial, I suspect it will turn out to be something pretty dubious or else it would have been offered as a defense at the first trial...


Its more likely to be something they didn't know about or couldn't prove the first time around.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 20, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Its more likely to be something they didn't know about or couldn't prove the first time around.



We shouldn't speculate too deeply as I assume it is sub judice, but what is there to know that wasn't known? Other than a confession from the woman that she consented?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 20, 2016)

existentialist said:


> but, when viewed against the general mentality that the football industry and its fans tend to display towards sexual assaults,.



What are these fan displays then?


----------



## existentialist (Jun 20, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> What are these fan displays then?


There's been some quite nasty victim-blaming in both the Evans and the Adam Johnston cases, as I recall.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> We shouldn't speculate too deeply as I assume it is sub judice, but what is there to know that wasn't known? Other than a confession from the woman that she consented?


I dunno, perhaps a confidence that she shared with someone else who fessed up afterwards, or similar. I just think it's unlikely to be something that could have been offered by the defence at the first trial because it was obviously compelling enough to have the conviction quashed. If they'd had access to that weight of information I'd have expected them to use it to try to get an acquittal.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 20, 2016)

existentialist said:


> There's been some quite nasty victim-blaming in both the Evans and the Adam Johnston cases, as I recall.


And that is a characterization of fans that you;re going to run with - rather than the 1000s of people singing songs against him week after week?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 20, 2016)

existentialist said:


> There's been some quite nasty victim-blaming in both the Evans and the Adam Johnston cases, as I recall.


Where did fans do this then? If you can _recall_.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 20, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I dunno, perhaps a confidence that she shared with someone else who fessed up afterwards, or similar. I just think it's unlikely to be something that could have been offered by the defence at the first trial because it was obviously compelling enough to have the conviction quashed. If they'd had access to that weight of information I'd have expected them to use it to try to get an acquittal.



It'll be interesting to find out. The strangest thing was the CPS announcing they would go for a new trial if it was quashed, which points to the new evidence being enough to quash, but not in their opinion enough to prevent an acquittal at a full trial. Really would love to know what it is!


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 20, 2016)

It will be interesting to see the new evidence,  as I've said before.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 20, 2016)

butchersapron said:


> And that is a characterization of fans that you;re going to run with - rather than the 1000s of people singing songs against him week after week?


I don't think I ever said - or implied - that every football fan in the land was quietly (or noisily) supporting either of them. I take your point, though, the noisy minority aren't representative. I don't think that defence really applies where the clubs are concerned, though.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 20, 2016)

existentialist said:


> I don't think I ever said - or implied - that every football fan in the land was quietly (or noisily) supporting either of them. I take your point, though, the noisy minority aren't representative. I don't think that defence really applies where the clubs are concerned, though.






> There's nothing wrong with it, in a "can't touch me for it, coppah!" sense, but, when viewed against the general mentality that the football industry and its fans tend to display towards sexual assaults, it's hard not to think that it fits in to that mentality rather seamlessly.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 20, 2016)

OK, fair enough. I shan't actually go back and edit in "some of [its fans]", but I hope we can agree that it's fairly unlikely that I was assuming that every football fan holds a universally negative attitude towards the victims of sexual assaults perpetrated by footballers.

If that wasn't unlikely, then let it henceforth be the case.


----------



## JimW (Jun 20, 2016)

The only comments I've seen from Chesterfield supporters on 1FF are wondering if they can face going while Evans is in the squad. One said if it was a choice between relegation and Evans he'd take relegation.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Really would love to know what it is!


Indeed. You also have to wonder what Chesterfield have read into it as it's unlikely they'd have given him a contract without having their lawyers go over the new evidence or at least being told what it is.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jun 20, 2016)

Crooked and Chesterfield always go together!
I am hearing Chedsterfield already from Barnsley fans!


----------



## Wilf (Jun 21, 2016)

With routine apologies for the source, this...

Ched Evans signs one-year deal with Chesterfield

... suggests, it's more than an opportunist grab for a player in the period while he is still free of a conviction. Chesterfield manager, Danny Wilson has been playing a long game


> Chesterfield made their shock move after a detailed discussion of new evidence with the player and his representatives.
> 
> The club are confident that Evans will complete a prolonged fight to clear his name.
> 
> ...


This though


> It is believed Wales are also monitoring developments with a decision pending on re-integrating the player into their senior squad.


Seems like journalistic bullshit.  Even setting aside the rape stuff, there's not a chance that Wales would be actively thinking of picking somebody who hasn't played for 4 years.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 24, 2016)

Sponsor drops out due to evans signing
Chesterfield sponsor pulls out in wake of Ched Evans signing


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 21, 2016)

Chesterfield hold £20 a pop raffle and fake the result:

Chesterfield apologise to fans after winning raffle entry is faked



> Chesterfield have apologised to fans after the winning entry in a competition to follow the team on their pre-season tour of Hungary was faked.
> 
> Supporters of the League One club had been invited to enter a £20 raffle.
> 
> ...



Stay classy.


----------



## hash tag (Aug 7, 2016)

Oxford United 1-1 Chesterfield

Quelle surprise "Evans' every touch at the Kassam Stadium was jeered by Oxford supporters"


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 7, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Sponsor drops out due to evans signing
> Chesterfield sponsor pulls out in wake of Ched Evans signing



I wasn't even aware that the bastard had been signed again  .

I'm Oxford. I now wish I'd been at this game -- I'd have been joined in the Yellows' abuse of the twat, without doubt


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 7, 2016)

If I'd been an Oxford *defender*, I'd have got myself sent off for stopping him scoring too 

Contact sport, football. Stretchers available


----------



## hash tag (Oct 5, 2016)

From what I can gather, he has been doing Ok at Chesterfield, but now, back in court then
Ched Evans trial to hear evidence from alleged rape victim


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 5, 2016)

hash tag said:


> From what I can gather, he has been doing Ok at Chesterfield, but now, back in court then
> Ched Evans trial to hear evidence from alleged rape victim



I like the way the press have to pretend the first trial never happened.


----------



## Ranbay (Oct 5, 2016)

There is loads of Vans outside the court all day every day.... two weeks more of this shit.


----------



## D'wards (Oct 14, 2016)

Footballer Ched Evans cleared of rape in retrial


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 14, 2016)

.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 14, 2016)

I had a bad feeling this would happen.  He's still guilty as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Mation (Oct 14, 2016)

This is appalling


----------



## dessiato (Oct 14, 2016)

D'wards said:


> Footballer Ched Evans cleared of rape in retrial


Just been reading this.

I'm not convinced that allowing previous partners of the girl is acceptable. The whole thing feels wrong.

What happens now? Who's going to sign him? How's he going to get his life back to what it was?


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Oct 14, 2016)

dessiato said:


> Who's going to sign him?



He was signed by Chesterfield in the closed season


----------



## crossthebreeze (Oct 14, 2016)

The poor woman, she's been treated appallingly. How the hell is it legal for her ex partners to be called as defence witnesses????


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 14, 2016)

dessiato said:


> I'm not convinced that allowing previous partners of the girl is acceptable.


The questions are; why was it allowed, what did they say, and why did the jury acquit him?


----------



## D'wards (Oct 14, 2016)

dessiato said:


> What happens now? Who's going to sign him? How's he going to get his life back to what it was?



I should imagine he'll be signed by a club, possibly this weekend.

Edit: Just seen post about him signed by Chesterfield - although i think a bigger club will take him now.


----------



## Sprocket. (Oct 14, 2016)

He could be back playing for Wales in the very near future!


----------



## Athos (Oct 14, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The questions are; why was it allowed, what did they say, and why did the jury acquit him?


It does seem a backwards step to effective allow a woman's past sex life to come under such scrutiny. I can only imagine that they had something very specific to say about a tendency to forget sex to which she had consented.  That's the only thing which could, at a push, be sufficient relevant to allow the defence to call them.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

The only new evidence was, 'She's a slag' and it was presented by people being offered £50,000 to do so.

British Justice


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Oct 14, 2016)

crossthebreeze said:


> The poor woman, she's been treated appallingly. How the hell is it legal for her ex partners to be called as defence witnesses????



Perhaps she has a history of crying rape or something. One would hope there was compelling evidence in order for the original verdict to be quashed.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

Athos said:


> It does seem a backwards step to effective allow a woman's past sex life to come under such scrutiny. I can only imagine that they had something very specific to say about a tendency to forget sex to which she had consented.  That's the only thing which could, at a push, be sufficient relevant to allow the defence to call them.



Presented by people who forgot to mention it until £50k was up for grabs.


----------



## Athos (Oct 14, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Presented by people who forgot to mention it until £50k was up for grabs.


Yeah, that reeks.


----------



## Sprocket. (Oct 14, 2016)

IMO this has taken rape cases back to the seventies when women were seen as the villains and their characters were on trial.


----------



## D'wards (Oct 14, 2016)

Athos said:


> It does seem a backwards step to effective allow a woman's past sex life to come under such scrutiny. I can only imagine that they had something very specific to say about a tendency to forget sex to which she had consented.  That's the only thing which could, at a push, be sufficient relevant to allow the defence to call them.


I was thinking this. Perhaps she has a history of group sex - i dunno, pure speculation.


----------



## Looby (Oct 14, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> Perhaps she has a history of crying rape or something. One would hope there was compelling evidence in order for the original verdict to be quashed.



She didn't 'cry rape' 


D'wards said:


> I was thinking this. Perhaps she has a history of group sex - i dunno, pure speculation.



So. Does a history of enjoying group sex make you more deserving of rape?


----------



## editor (Oct 14, 2016)

Given the verdict here, I'd be obliged if posters trod warily.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Oct 14, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The questions are; why was it allowed, what did they say, and why did the jury acquit him?


The report says they gave "explicit evidence about her sex life".  However his lawyers managed to get around this, this crosses a line or legal protection for rape victims, and its absolutely outrageous that it was allowed whatever they actually said.  Other grounds may or may not have been found for his aquittal, but firstly this plays to any sexist/misogynistic or conservative attitudes that jury members may have, and secondly it may have blurred the legal line (ie if they testified she had consented to a similar sexual scenario before with other partners, legally every partner has to get consent every time, but mentioning past sexual history may blur this legal fact in the minds of the jury).  Remember she had no recall of the night in question, it was police who bought the case, so any evidence about her trustworthiness is irrelevant.  

I'm very worried that this will set some sort of precedent (either legally or morally) and that rape victims will be less protected, and less likely to make complaints.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 14, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> Perhaps she has a history of crying rape or something.



Yes.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Oct 14, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> Perhaps she has a history of crying rape or something. One would hope there was compelling evidence in order for the original verdict to be quashed.


She didn't make the complaint of rape.  She made a complaint that her drink may have been spiked. The police pursued a rape charge arising from their investigations.  Your phrasing is disgusting. Women do not "cry rape".


----------



## Looby (Oct 14, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Yes.


Yes what?


----------



## ffsear (Oct 14, 2016)

editor said:


> Given the verdict here, I'd be obliged if posters trod warily.



I'd close the thread mate, or you're gonna have your work cut out for the next few weeks!


----------



## crossthebreeze (Oct 14, 2016)

Athos said:


> It does seem a backwards step to effective allow a woman's past sex life to come under such scrutiny. I can only imagine that they had something very specific to say about a tendency to forget sex to which she had consented.  That's the only thing which could, at a push, be sufficient relevant to allow the defence to call them.


I guess that what would be relevant is if ex partners had given evidence of times when after she had consumed alcohol, she did not appear drunk and seemed capable of making decisions, but had blacked out by the next day - I have no idea if evidence like that was given, but there would be no reason to give "explicit details" of her sex life as part of that evidence, except to appeal to any sexist attitudes of the jurors.


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Oct 14, 2016)

crossthebreeze said:


> She didn't make the complaint of rape.  She made a complaint that her drink may have been spiked. The police pursued a rape charge arising from their investigations.  Your phrasing is disgusting. Women do not "cry rape".



That's just what it was called when I was growing up. I make no apologies for not dressing up my words to suit you.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

ffsear said:


> I'd close the thread mate, or you're gonna have your work cut out for the next few weeks!



Evans is hardly gonna sue is he?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Yes.



Yes?


----------



## crossthebreeze (Oct 14, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> That's just what it was called when I was growing up. I make no apologies for not dressing up my words to suit you.


And presumably now you have grown up, so you can now begin to consider how some phrases have a history of being used against women and other vulnerable groups, and rape victims in general.  Or are you too selfish to think about that?


----------



## trashpony (Oct 14, 2016)

Ched Evans is still a rapist. Just one that's got away with it. Like 90% of rapists


----------



## D'wards (Oct 14, 2016)

Looby said:


> She didn't 'cry rape'
> 
> 
> So. Does a history of enjoying group sex make you more deserving of rape?


I dunno - i'm just speculating as to what evidence the defence put forward from witnesses regarding her previous sex life. 
NB - are you attacking specifically me or just the contention you put forward in general?


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime you might be old but you haven't finished growing up yet.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 14, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Ched Evans is still a rapist. Just one that's got away with it. Like 90% of rapists



yep.

that dodgy 50k says it all. Bought


----------



## Dowie (Oct 14, 2016)

crossthebreeze said:


> The report says they gave "explicit evidence about her sex life".  However his lawyers managed to get around this, this crosses a line or legal protection for rape victims, and its absolutely outrageous that it was allowed whatever they actually said.  Other grounds may or may not have been found for his aquittal, but firstly this plays to any sexist/misogynistic or conservative attitudes that jury members may have, and secondly it may have blurred the legal line (ie if they testified she had consented to a similar sexual scenario before with other partners, legally every partner has to get consent every time, but mentioning past sexual history may blur this legal fact in the minds of the jury).  Remember she had no recall of the night in question, it was police who bought the case, so any evidence about her trustworthiness is irrelevant.
> 
> I'm very worried that this will set some sort of precedent (either legally or morally) and that rape victims will be less protected, and less likely to make complaints.



while not wanting to apologise for Ched in this case I can certainly see both sides of that argument re: sexual history

if a jury is looking at this from the perspective of it being rather unlikely that a woman would agree to a threesome on a whim like that as they certainly(or they believe women they know) wouldn't do anything of the sort... it isn't exactly the full picture. If she's regularly had threesomes in the past and simply can't remember what happened in this instance then the probability changes rather a lot based on the condition that she enjoys threesomes and one night stands. As she's not made a complaint of rape but stated that she can't remember and given that she's had threesomes before there would surely be plenty of reasonable doubt here for the jury. That isn't to say that this should be the case in general, especially when the victim is making an allegation of rape rather than a statement that they can't remember anything.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 14, 2016)

crossthebreeze said:


> I guess that what would be relevant is if ex partners had given evidence of times when after she had consumed alcohol, she did not appear drunk and seemed capable of making decisions, but had blacked out by the next day - I have no idea if evidence like that was given, but there would be no reason to give "explicit details" of her sex life as part of that evidence, except to appeal to any sexist attitudes of the jurors.


Of course, the evidence of her past sexual conduct may not have benn what they cleared him on. Perhaps the evidence was much stronger and will come out, given time.

At the moment all we can be sure about is that whatever it was, it was compelling enough for the first verdict to be quashed, and furthermore, for a jury (seven of whom were women), to acquit him at the second trial.


----------



## killer b (Oct 14, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Ched Evans is still a rapist. Just one that's got away with it. Like 90% of rapists


90% seems a generous estimate. I'd be surprised if it was more than one in a hundred convicted.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 14, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Ched Evans is still a rapist. Just one that's got away with it. Like 90% of rapists


This is precisely what the editor was asking people _not _to do on the previous page.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

D'wards said:


> I dunno - i'm just speculating as to what evidence the defence put forward from witnesses regarding her previous sex life.
> NB - are you attacking specifically me or just the contention you put forward in general?




There's no speculation needed, it was all in open court; Evans produced 2 men who claimed she has enjoyed rough sex with them, said, 'Fuck me harder' and once had trouble remembering what had happened the night before. Both men were interviewed by police before the original trial, neither mentioned these things until after the trail and only once £50,000 was offered to anyone who could help acquit Evans.


----------



## hegley (Oct 14, 2016)

D'wards said:


> I dunno - i'm just speculating as to what evidence the defence put forward from witnesses regarding her previous sex life.


Think it's pretty much covered here: Second Ched Evans defence witness denies £50,000 reward motive


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> This is precisely what the editor was asking people _not _to do on the previous page.






Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Evans is hardly gonna sue is he?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 14, 2016)

Just because you say so doesn't make it so. Remarks like that are now libellous. I can understand why the site owner would be twitchy about them.


----------



## hegley (Oct 14, 2016)

Dowie said:


> while not wanting to apologise for Ched in this case I can certainly see both sides of that argument re: sexual history


No, just no. If I go out for the next 100 nights and have wild sex with a different man each night, and then on the 101st night I'm not up for it, with anyone - the previous 100 nights are irrelevant to this particular night. Why is this so difficult to understand.


----------



## Ranbay (Oct 14, 2016)

have to turn the internet off now, cant read any more "she should be raped" posts.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Just because you say so doesn't make it so. Remarks like that are now libellous. I can understand why the site owner would be twitchy about them.



Rapey fucker will not be wishing to spend any more time in court.


----------



## D'wards (Oct 14, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> There's no speculation needed, it was all in open court; Evans produced 2 men who claimed she has enjoyed rough sex with them, said, 'Fuck me harder' and once had trouble remembering what had happened the night before. Both men were interviewed by police before the original trial, neither mentioned these things until after the trail and only once £50,000 was offered to anyone who could help acquit Evans.


I am i no way defending Evans or what the judge allowed in this trial, but i just read the book Helter Skelter by Vincent Bugliosi, who was Charles Manson's prosecutor. One thing i find interesting, is that he likes to interview witnesses many times. He contends that he has been given new vital information about a case on the 8th interview with a witness.


----------



## D'wards (Oct 14, 2016)

Ranbay said:


> have to turn the internet off now, cant read any more "she should be raped" posts.


Here are you reading this? I would hazard a guess at t*****r


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Rapey fucker will not be wishing to spend any more time in court.


let's hope not, eh.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

D'wards said:


> I am i no way defending Evans or what the judge allowed in this trial, but i just read the book Helter Skelter by Vincent Bugliosi, who was Charles Manson's prosecutor. One thing i find interesting, is that he likes to interview witnesses many times. He contends that he has been given new vital information about a case on the 8th interview with a witness.



That's how insurance companies and Ben Gurion airport security quiz people; repeating the same questions. Neither offer £50,000 though...


----------



## Ranbay (Oct 14, 2016)

D'wards said:


> Here are you reading this? I would hazard a guess at t*****r



you what?


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Oct 14, 2016)

crossthebreeze said:


> And presumably now you have grown up, so you can now begin to consider how some phrases have a history of being used against women and other vulnerable groups, and rape victims in general.  Or are you too selfish to think about that?



You're right. I don't spend too much time wondering whether throwaway comments on bulletin boards have a history of anything much. I just say what I think at the time.

Although you might yourself consider that Evans is also a victim here, since he was convicted and imprisoned for a crime of which he has been subsequently acquitted.



bimble said:


> SqueakyBumTime you might be old but you haven't finished growing up yet.



Very true.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> Although you might yourself consider that Evans is also a victim here, since he was convicted and imprisoned for a crime of which he has been subsequently acquitted.


----------



## D'wards (Oct 14, 2016)

Ranbay said:


> you what?


Ahem, Twitter

Its a bloodbath over there


----------



## Ranbay (Oct 14, 2016)

D'wards said:


> Ahem, Twitter
> 
> Its a bloodbath over there



Sorry, mostly facebook and other forums...


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> Although you might yourself consider that Evans is also a victim here, since he was convicted and imprisoned for a crime of which he has been subsequently acquitted.


yes, an acquittal which is coloured by the means by which is was achieved. the way the lawyers accomplished it will lead to his acquittal having question marks over it.


----------



## Dowie (Oct 14, 2016)

hegley said:


> No, just no. If I go out for the next 100 nights and have wild sex with a different man each night, and then on the 101st night I'm not up for it, with anyone - the previous 100 nights are irrelevant to this particular night. Why is this so difficult to understand.



that isn't difficult to understand but that isn't what I'm commenting on


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 14, 2016)

Athos said:


> I can only imagine that they had something very specific to say about a tendency to forget sex to which she had consented.


This seems to be what it was.

Ched Evans rape trial: Footballer's alleged victim 'lying' - BBC News


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2016)

D'wards said:


> Ahem, Twitter
> 
> Its a bloodbath over there


It's so ugly. Hoards of people tweeting in furious glee at this defeat for ''the feminists' .


----------



## trashpony (Oct 14, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> This seems to be what it was.
> 
> Ched Evans rape trial: Footballer's alleged victim 'lying' - BBC News


Except that witness made 3 contradictory statements, some of which were made after he found out about the £50k reward Massey was offering. He'll probably get it now. 

Massey tried to bribe the receptionist at the hotel too. 

They're scum.


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 14, 2016)

good old British justice


fucking whole thing is a joke


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 14, 2016)

Perhaps those on here who spewed vitriol, at those of us who had the temerity to suggest that he may not have been guilty, will act like men and apologise. They got it wrong.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Perhaps those on here who spewed vitriol, at those of us who had the temerity to suggest that he may not have been guilty, will act like men and apologise. They got it wrong.


there's not guilty 'he didn't in fact do it' then there's not guilty 'this is a manufactured verdict'.

i am not sure this is the first sort of not guilty.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Perhaps those on here who spewed vitriol, at those of us who had the temerity to suggest that he may not have been guilty, will act like men and apologise. They got it wrong.




FUCK OFF


----------



## The Octagon (Oct 14, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Perhaps those on here who spewed vitriol, at those of us who had the temerity to suggest that he may not have been guilty, will act like men and apologise. They got it wrong.



"Act like men"

You're a joke.


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 14, 2016)

ever the optimist Sasaferrato,


so some rich fuck just  used his cash to start a campaign to distort a women's credibility and  get off a charge...


i don't think many apologise will be offered


----------



## JimW (Oct 14, 2016)

Ax^ said:


> good old British justice...


The best that money can buy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Perhaps those on here who spewed vitriol, at those of us who had the temerity to suggest that he may not have been guilty, will act like men and apologise. They got it wrong.


what about the women? should they act like men too?


----------



## Sue (Oct 14, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Perhaps those on here who spewed vitriol, at those of us who had the temerity to suggest that he may not have been guilty, will act like men and apologise. They got it wrong.


Found guilty of rape or not, him and his pal acted like complete scumbags.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 14, 2016)

.

If anything , this shows how shit the systems is that it can be bumped along by access to money and a better clarss of brief


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 14, 2016)

editor said:


> Given the verdict here, I'd be obliged if posters trod warily.



Indeed. When one reads the thread, a goodly number of people were completely convinced that he was guilty, and gave anyone who had the temerity to suggest that as he had had his previous conviction quashed, it might be a good idea to await the verdict of the re-trial, screeds of abuse.

We have had the re-trial, the jury have found him not guilty of rape.

His behaviour was reprehensible, and although not guilty of rape in this instance, he really needs to have a long hard look at his behaviours.

It will be interesting to see if any of the bigger clubs will now sign him, I suspect that they won't.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 14, 2016)

the awful fucking twat will always be known for this, whatever the official verdict


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 14, 2016)

Sue said:


> Found guilty of rape or not, him and his pal acted like complete scumbags.



Yes, they certainly did, and should be thoroughly ashamed of their behaviour.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 14, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> the awful fucking twat will always be known for this, whatever the official verdict



Yep, his 'big league' football days are over.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 14, 2016)

I am sure there is a sex assault accusation but not convicted first eleven team out there somewhere that he could join

ETA if I was not going home for the day, I would probably compile a sample squad for the *lolz*


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 14, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Yep, his 'big league' football days are over.



you heart fucking bleeds for the cunt...


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 14, 2016)

Ax^ said:


> ever the optimist Sasaferrato,
> 
> 
> so some rich fuck just  used his cash to start a campaign to distort a women's credibility and  get off a charge...
> ...



Which says a great deal about you, to your detriment. A huge lack of honour and honesty on your part.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> what about the women? should they act like men too?




Women can'tact like men as women can't rape.


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 14, 2016)

Fucking hell, this is truly disgusting. Why was the victim not afforded more protection? And the £50K, how can the evidence that bought be admissible?

The whole thing just stinks


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Which says a great deal about you, to your detriment.




Are you seriously comfortable with a man gaining an acquittal by offering bribes to witnesses?


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 14, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Which says a great deal about you, to your detriment. A huge lack of honour and honesty on your part.


You're a fucking disgrace


----------



## ffsear (Oct 14, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Are you seriously comfortable with a man gaining an acquittal by offering bribes to witnesses?



Is this true?   Why was the case not dismissed if so?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 14, 2016)

Ax^ said:


> you heart fucking bleeds for the cunt...



No, it doesn't. What he did may not have been illegal, but morally, absolutely unacceptable.

I try very hard not to prejudge whether someone is guilty or not, I prefer to await the outcome of the trial. 

Having had the trial, and a 'not guilty' verdict, one would have to be a complete dick-head to keep insisting he was guilty.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

ffsear said:


> Is this true?



Yes



> Why was the case not dismissed if so?



Cos instead of a bribe Evans's father-in-law called it a 'reward for information'

If you're feeling romantic, you can buy your engagement and wedding rings from Evans's father-in-law's business, help to pay the bribes rewards


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 14, 2016)

I think in Scotland, This may well fall into the Not Proven acquittal scenario- something the scotch have that the Ingerlish should adopt


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 14, 2016)

twentythreedom said:


> You're a fucking disgrace




And you? What do you call someone who refuses to accept the verdict of the jury, who have heard _all _the evidence? Deluded? Stupid? Vindictive? Or simply too much of an arsehole to admit they were wrong? All of the preceding?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 14, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Having had the trial, and a 'not guilty' verdict, one would have to be a complete dick-head to keep insisting he was guilty.


why?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 14, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> I think in Scotland, This may well fall into the Not Proven acquittal scenario- something the scotch have that the Ingerlish should adopt



Yes, it possibly would. There are moves afoot to bring the Scottish system to two verdicts, Guilty and Not Proven.

Not Proven at present is seen by many as meaning 'We think you did it, but there isn't quite enough evidence', which is a bit unfair on the truly innocent.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 14, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Except that witness made 3 contradictory statements, some of which were made after he found out about the £50k reward Massey was offering. He'll probably get it now.
> 
> Massey tried to bribe the receptionist at the hotel too.
> 
> They're scum.


Where's the 50k stuff being reported? The BBC don't mention it.


----------



## Fingers (Oct 14, 2016)

Should be:

Guilty
Not proven
Innocent.


----------



## Sprocket. (Oct 14, 2016)

Has Evans indicated if he will now be looking for compensation following the latest verdict?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 14, 2016)

Fingers said:


> Should be:
> 
> Guilty
> Not proven
> Innocent.


No it shouldn't.

_Not proven_ is fucking ridiculous.


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Where's the 50k stuff being reported? The BBC don't mention it.


Look at the last few paragraphs here:
Campaigners fear Evans case will stop women reporting rape

It explains the 50k reward and also says that the jury were _not _allowed to see messages that his girlfriend sent to a hotel employee begging him to say something to help.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Where's the 50k stuff being reported? The BBC don't mention it.




Ched Evans tells rape trial sex with woman in hotel was consensual

Ched Evans tells court alleged victim said he could 'join in' sex

Ched Evans tells his rape retrial he didn't speak to his victim before they had sex | Daily Mail Online

'Childish' Ched Evans says woman having sex with friend let him 'join in' - court

And so on...


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 14, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> FUCK OFF



Thank you for that. A cogent argument, which displays your level of intelligence wonderfully.

What part of 'A jury has returned a verdict of Not Guilty' are you having trouble understanding? 

I'm sorry that the jury didn't agree with your preconception, it is a bit embarrassing when you get it so wrong. Don't worry, there will be another innocent man along soon, you can direct your vitriol towards them, it might make you feel a bit better, until you get it wrong, again.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 14, 2016)

Fingers said:


> Should be:
> 
> Guilty
> Not proven
> Innocent.



That is what it is in Scotland at present.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Thank you for that. A cogent argument, which displays your level of intelligence wonderfully.
> 
> What part of 'A jury has returned a verdict of Not Guilty' are you having trouble understanding?
> 
> I'm sorry that the jury didn't agree with your preconception, it is a bit embarrassing when you get it so wrong. Don't worry, there will be another innocent man along soon, you can direct your vitriol towards them, it might make you feel a bit better, until you get it wrong, again.




You really are a fucking wrong'un here.


----------



## gosub (Oct 14, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No it shouldn't.
> 
> _Not proven_ is fucking ridiculous.



not proven is sensiible, its double jeopardy thats stupid, and double jeopardy in a system that has a not proven verdict is really fucked up


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 14, 2016)

He's only technically 'innocent' ffs


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 14, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Where's the 50k stuff being reported? The BBC don't mention it.


And here: 
Second Ched Evans defence witness denies £50,000 reward motive


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> Has Evans indicated if he will now be looking for compensation following the latest verdict?



Bet Sasaferrato £500 to the server fund that if he tries the Home Office will reject it.

Will Sas be 'Man enough' to accept?


----------



## Fingers (Oct 14, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> That is what it is in Scotland at present.



Ah, well in that case it should be Guilty/Not guilty.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 14, 2016)

gosub said:


> not proven is sensiible,


It's not. It pisses on the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Bet Sasaferrato £500 to the server fund that if he tries the Home Office will reject it.
> 
> Will Sas be 'Man enough' to accept?


make it five shillings and he might be on


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 14, 2016)

Just on a general note,


Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You really are a fucking wrong'un here.



No. I'm someone who can accept that jury, having heard the evidence, all of the evidence, has returned a verdict of Not Guilty based on that evidence.

I am not defending Evan's behaviour, it was dreadful. There is a wee bit of a difference though between behaving dreadfully and being guilty of rape.

I hope you never find yourself in front of a jury with your mindset, especially if you are innocent. Bit of a bummer to be locked up for years for something you didn't do.

IIRC Evans had served his time, and this action was to 'clear his name', although I'm not sure his name will ever be 'cleared'. Not because he was guilty of rape, but because of his behaviour. He's served the time, and lost his footballing career. What more do you want from the man? A lynch mob?


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2016)

Remember the Saudi billionaire who was cleared of rape last year by a London court following his defence that it was an accident he tripped and fell into her?
 Just saying, it is not unprecedented for the verdict 'not guilty' to leave a lot of people not entirely satisfied that justice has been done.


----------



## hegley (Oct 14, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> I'm sorry that the jury didn't agree with your preconception, it is a bit embarrassing when you get it so wrong.


The man lied his way into a hotel room, and, in the dark, had sex with a woman who he had never met before, didn't speak to her before, during or after sex and then left via the fire exit. How can consent ever possibly be presumed in this scenario? If anyone's got anything wrong here, it's the jury, not Bahnhof Strasse.


----------



## 8den (Oct 14, 2016)

Less than 1 in 30 rape accusations lead to a conviction. How anyone can welcome todays verdict is beyond me.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 14, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Bet Sasaferrato £500 to the server fund that if he tries the Home Office will reject it.
> 
> Will Sas be 'Man enough' to accept?



No, because firstly I don't think he will have the temerity to seek damages, and secondly, because his behaviour was such that he doesn't deserve damages.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 14, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> IIRC Evans had served his time


let out far earlier than the full sentence while still loudly proclaiming his innocence. Its not usual for the unrepentant to get out early in these cases


----------



## 8den (Oct 14, 2016)

1. How is her previous sexual history relevant. 

2. How is attempt to bribe witnesses not relevant?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 14, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Just on a general note,
> 
> 
> No. I'm someone who can accept that jury, having heard the evidence, all of the evidence, has returned a verdict of Not Guilty based on that evidence.
> ...


you're asking people to meekly accept a verdict they strongly disapprove of. If we were to di just that, many many miscarriages of justice would continue to occur. Miscarriages of justice need to be challenged.


----------



## 8den (Oct 14, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Just on a general note,
> 
> 
> No. I'm someone who can accept that jury, having heard the evidence, all of the evidence, has returned a verdict of Not Guilty based on that evidence.
> ...



Juries can be misdirected by Judges, And this judge was clearly was out of fucking order allowing her sexual history to be testimony.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 14, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Just on a general note,
> 
> 
> No. I'm someone who can accept that jury, having heard the evidence, all of the evidence, has returned a verdict of Not Guilty based on that evidence.
> ...



Great topic to gloat about.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 14, 2016)

hegley said:


> The man lied his way into a hotel room, and, in the dark, had sex with a woman who he had never met before, didn't speak to her before, during or after sex and then left via the fire exit. How can consent ever possibly be presumed in this scenario? If anyone's got anything wrong here, it's the jury, not Bahnhof Strasse.



Neither you, nor Herr Strasse have heard all the evidence, the jury have.

I'm bloody sure that were it you in front of the jury, you wouldn't be doubting the verdict.

So many of you with egg all over your faces, and the hubris to continue to assert his guilt.

A bit frightening really, just a step away from lynch mob 'justice'.


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2016)

I don't know what happened in that hotel room because I wasn't there. But more generally Sasaferrato , you can't seriously believe that the justice system in this or any country always 100% of the time gets it right, that would just be daft.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

8den said:


> Juries can be misdirected by Judges, And this judge was clearly was out of fucking order allowing her sexual history to be testimony.


i think you mean the appeal court judges. if you are going to have a pop at the verdict at least have the good sense to know what you're talking about.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 14, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Neither you, nor Herr Strasse have heard all the evidence, the jury have.
> 
> I'm bloody sure that were it you in front of the jury, you wouldn't be doubting the verdict.
> 
> ...



Why are you suddenly so happy? 

British justice at its most ugly.  If you can't see that then we have to wonder where your instincts lie.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 14, 2016)

He is guilty though, he even admitted it.
What's wrong, and needs protesting, is the way the courts deal with cases like this and how, in this case, the hell the judge admitted the testimony of the victims' exes as evidence that Evans must be innocent. I don't know how you interpret expressing these grave concerns as having egg all over our faces


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 14, 2016)

8den said:


> Juries can be misdirected by Judges, And this judge was clearly was out of fucking order allowing her sexual history to be testimony.



Well, if that is the case, the Crown have redress available. If the CPS feel that the judge's directions were erroneous, there can be yet another trial. Quite where you could find an impartial jury, for a third trial is problematic though. There has been a huge amount of press coverage, and I dare say it will be on the TV news tonight.

I have nothing more to say on this, his behaviour was absolutely loathsome, but after due legal process he has been found not guilty of rape. You don't have to like it, but there it is.

(Incidentally, as I've said a number of times before, I feel that rape is a vile crime, and would support whole life sentences for rapists.)


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 14, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> There are moves afoot to bring the Scottish system to two verdicts, Guilty and Not Proven.


No. The criticism is of the _not proven_ verdict, not of _not guilty. _


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Yes, it possibly would. There are moves afoot to bring the Scottish system to two verdicts, Guilty and Not Proven.


so no one to leave a court in scotland will ever be innocent.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 14, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> I have nothing more to say on this, his behaviour was absolutely loathsome, but after due legal process he has been found not guilty of rape. You don't have to like it, but there it is.



You're damn right I don't have to like it.  We also don't have to just leave it there, unless you think nothing should change ever.


----------



## planetgeli (Oct 14, 2016)

bimble said:


> Remember the Saudi billionaire who was cleared of rape last year by a London court following his defence that it was an accident he tripped and fell into her?
> Just saying, it is not unprecedented for the verdict 'not guilty' to leave a lot of people not entirely satisfied that justice has been done.



I think its worth being reminded how corrupt British justice can be. 

"20 mins of private evidence" (press removed from court)

Jury took half an hour to acquit. Wonder how much per minute the bribe worked out as? Truly incredible.

(Sorry about the Daily Mail link)

Saudi millionaire Ehsan Abdulaziz cleared of raping teen in Maida Vale | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Sasaferrato (Oct 14, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> Why are you suddenly so happy?
> 
> British justice at its most ugly.  If you can't see that then we have to wonder where your instincts lie.



I'm not happy. Although I suggested pre-trial that rather than assume guilt, we should wait for the trial, I did think that it was likely that a guilty verdict would be returned. I would defend the right of anyone to be innocent until proven guilty. A very strong sense of fair play was the reason I was not happy with the attitude of a goodly number of posters. I have a strong feeling that the jury voted not guilty on a very narrow margin.

Put yourself in Evan's shoes, you have been accused of a hideous crime, and everyone is screaming 'GUILTY' before the trial has taken place. A good place to be? I don't think that the courts always get it right, but it is what we have, and it's a bloody sight better than 'law' in some other jurisdictions.

That is the final comment.


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2016)

A lot of people out there (judging by Twitter) are delighted by this verdict. Some of them might be massive fans of the man himself but it looks like the joy is actually rage against women in general. It's really disgusting, what a week.


----------



## 8den (Oct 14, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> Well, if that is the case, the Crown have redress available. If the CPS feel that the judge's directions were erroneous, there can be yet another trial. Quite where you could find an impartial jury, for a third trial is problematic though. There has been a huge amount of press coverage, and I dare say it will be on the TV news tonight.
> 
> I have nothing more to say on this, his behaviour was absolutely loathsome, but after due legal process he has been found not guilty of rape. You don't have to like it, but there it is.
> 
> (Incidentally, as I've said a number of times before, I feel that rape is a vile crime, and would support whole life sentences for rapists.)



And Sass the point that everyone is trying to make and you dont seem willing to grasp, is that you seem satisfied that the CPS and Justice system did everything in their power to convict him, while others here know that the justice system is absolutely broken and has let down hundreds of thousands of women and if you're a white wealthy man you are unlikely to be convicted of rape.


----------



## 8den (Oct 14, 2016)

bimble said:


> A lot of people out there (judging by Twitter) are delighted by this verdict. Some of them might be massive fans of the man himself but it looks like the joy is actually rage against women in general. It's really disgusting, what a week.



Yeah I thought Trump fans had the market cornered in under shitbaggery but looking at the Chad Evans hashtag makes me want to shower in bleach.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 14, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> I'm not happy. Although I suggested pre-trial that rather than assume guilt, we should wait for the trial, I did think that it was likely that a guilty verdict would be returned. I would defend the right of anyone to be innocent until proven guilty. A very strong sense of fair play was the reason I was not happy with the attitude of a goodly number of posters. I have a strong feeling that the jury voted not guilty on a very narrow margin.
> 
> Put yourself in Evan's shoes, you have been accused of a hideous crime, and everyone is screaming 'GUILTY' before the trial has taken place. A good place to be? I don't think that the courts always get it right, but it is what we have, and it's a bloody sight better than 'law' in some other jurisdictions.
> 
> That is the final comment.



I would never have been in Evans shoes.  That's the point.  Bollocks - that's the final comment.


----------



## Athos (Oct 14, 2016)

D'wards said:


> I was thinking this. Perhaps she has a history of group sex - i dunno, pure speculation.


A history of group sex would be entirely irrelevant.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 14, 2016)

How often do we see that a defendant's criminal history is not allowed to be known during the trial yet in a rape trail a woman's sexual history is?  Its a never ending disgrace.

ETA: Someone get in contact with Lilly Allen maybe she can apologise on behalf of the justice system.


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> How often do we see that a defendant's criminal history is not allowed to be known during the trial yet in a rape trail a woman's sexual history is?  Its a never ending disgrace.


It is very unusual for this sort of evidence to be admitted in a rape trial, this was an exception. Not saying it was right of the judge to allow it but important to remember that this is not usually allowed. Still the damage will be done I'm sure this case will put a lot of people off from coming forward thinking that they will have to go through similar.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 14, 2016)

gosub said:


> not proven is sensiible, its double jeopardy thats stupid, and double jeopardy in a system that has a not proven verdict is really fucked up


Double jeopardy has been revised so that there can be another trial. Revised in light of Angus sinclair and world's end murders case.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 14, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> Double jeopardy has been revised so that there can be another trial. Revised in light of Angus sinclair and world's end murders case.


In the light of the Stephen Lawrence case in England


----------



## Looby (Oct 14, 2016)

D'wards said:


> I dunno - i'm just speculating as to what evidence the defence put forward from witnesses regarding her previous sex life.
> NB - are you attacking specifically me or just the contention you put forward in general?


I don't see the relevance unless you think there's some sort of link between liking group sex and being raped? Her previous sex life has absolutely nothing to do with whether she was raped that night, absolutely fuck all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

bimble said:


> It is very unusual for this sort of evidence to be admitted in a rape trial, this was an exception. Not saying it was right of the judge to allow it but important to remember that this is not usually allowed. Still the damage will be done I'm sure this case will put a lot of people off from coming forward thinking that they will have to go through similar.


You liked my post above about the APPEAL COURT JUDGES allowing it.


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> You liked my post above about the APPEAL COURT JUDGES allowing it.


Yes, and? Your post explained why they allowed it and how exceptional that is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

bimble said:


> Yes, and? Your post explained why they allowed it and how exceptional that is.


Yes. And then another judge presided over the retrial. Yet you think the retrial judge had an option


----------



## Gromit (Oct 14, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> How often do we see that a defendant's criminal history is not allowed to be known during the trial yet in a rape trail a woman's sexual history is?  Its a never ending disgrace.
> 
> ETA: Someone get in contact with Lilly Allen maybe she can apologise on behalf of the justice system.


Depends how relevant the criminal history is. If not relevant they aren't allowed but if it is they can and do.


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2016)

Pickman's model I don't know what you're trying to prove. My post was a reply to Teaboy, my only point being that admitting such evidence is highly unusual, it is not normally permitted at all, but that doesn't mean it won't put a lot of women off from coming forward for fear of the same.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 14, 2016)

Looby said:


> Her previous sex life has absolutely nothing to do with whether she was raped that night, absolutely fuck all.


Well the contention was that on other occasions she had participated in consensual sex and forgotten about it the following day. That is relevant.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 14, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Depends how relevant the criminal history is. If not relevant they aren't allowed but if it is they can and do.



Fuck off Gromit.  This subject needs you like a hole in the head. Do one.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

bimble said:


> Pickman's model I don't know what you're trying to prove. My post was a reply to Teaboy, my only point being that admitting such evidence is highly unusual, it is not normally permitted at all, but that doesn't mean it won't put a lot of women off from coming forward for fear of the same.


You said "not saying it was right of the judge to allow it [testimony of former partners]". The judge had no option. The appeal court had in this case allowed it. Do you understand now that the entire point of the retrial was to hear something you seem to think the retrial judge should have excluded?


----------



## Gromit (Oct 14, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> Fuck off Gromit.  This subject needs you like a hole in the head. Do one.


Don't like your crap comparison being shown for what it is eh?!


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

.


Spymaster said:


> Well the contention was that on other occasions she had participated in consensual sex and forgotten about it the following day. That is relevant.



Yeah, reading the testimony of the two blokes who were not motivated by the £50,000, they pretty much both admit to raping her as well


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Don't like your crap comparison being shown for what it is eh?!


Oh fuck off you dull wanker


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> You said "not saying it was right of the judge to allow it [testimony of former partners]". The judge had no option. The appeal court had in this case allowed it. Do you understand now that the entire point of the retrial was to hear something you seem to think the retrial judge should have excluded?


Yes, I understand. I should not have said 'the judge' it was the court of appeal made that decision.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 14, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Don't like your crap comparison being shown for what it is eh?!



No. I just don't like you. Off you fuck.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

bimble said:


> Yes, I understand. I should not have said 'the judge' it was the court of appeal made that decision.


Right. I'm glad we're on the same page.


----------



## Looby (Oct 14, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well the contention was that on other occasions she had participated in consensual sex and forgotten about it the following day. That is relevant.


Based on testimony from someone who was offered 50k for his information.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 14, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yeah, reading the testimony of the two blokes who were not motivated by the £50,000, they pretty much both admit to raping her as well


I haven't read that but there's clearly an issue if their testimony was bought for £50k. 

If they're lying about it they've committed a very serious offence themselves.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

Looby said:


> Based on testimony from someone who was offered 50k for his information.



The pros was pretty shite on this; he asked, "Have you accepted any of the money?"	Should have asked if he will accept any money in the future, whilst reminding him of the prison terms perjury attract...


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

Looby said:


> Based on testimony from someone who was offered 50k for his information.


Yeh. This isn't not guilty didn't do it but not guilty manufactured verdict based on apparently purchased evidence


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 14, 2016)

Looby said:


> Based on testimony from someone who was offered 50k for his information.


Yes.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I haven't read that but there's clearly an issue if their testimony was bought for £50k.
> 
> If they're lying about it they've committed a very serious offence themselves.



No money has been paid.

Yet.


----------



## Looby (Oct 14, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I haven't read that but there's clearly an issue if their testimony was bought for £50k.
> 
> If they're lying about it they've committed a very serious offence themselves.


Someone said earlier that this bloke was previously interviewed and only offered this information at a much later date and after the details of the trial were widely reported. He was accused of making up some of what happened to ensure it backed up what Evans had said happened.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 14, 2016)

Looby said:


> Someone said earlier that this bloke was previously interviewed and only offered this information at a much later date and after the details of the trial were widely reported. He was accused of making up some of what happened to ensure it backed up what Evans had said happened.


Yes. Aren't there 2 blokes though?


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 14, 2016)

The Graun has several articles, including this which is worth a glance:
Campaigners fear Evans case will stop women reporting rape


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> .
> 
> Yeah, reading the testimony of the two blokes who were not motivated by the £50,000, they pretty much both admit to raping her as well


Really really don't want to go down this rabbit hole again but no. Suspect them of perjury sure but I don't think it's ok for you to call them rapists too.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Yes. Aren't there 2 blokes though?




Yes. Both were interviewed by police before the original trial, neither mentioned what appears to be the compelling evidence until after Evans's conviction and offer of £50k.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

bimble said:


> Really really don't want to go down this rabbit hole again but no. Suspect them of perjury sure but I don't think it's ok for you to call them rapists too.



Their names are not public, so I don't see why the hell not?


----------



## Looby (Oct 14, 2016)

Sorry, I misread and thought it was one bloke. Apparently they're in Evans' social circle too.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

Looby said:


> Sorry, I misread and thought it was one bloke. Apparently they're in Evans' social circle too.



They all grew up in the same small town.


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Their names are not public, so I don't see why the hell not?


Lets not go there. If you want to accuse them of rape maybe explain why though.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Oct 14, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yes. Both were interviewed by police before the original trial, neither mentioned what appears to be the compelling evidence until after Evans's conviction and offer of £50k.


and one seems to have been partly motivated by the myth that rape victims "must be lying" about rape if they are sexually active soon after being raped


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 14, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yes. Both were interviewed by police before the original trial, neither mentioned what appears to be the compelling evidence until after Evans's conviction and offer of £50k.


Hmmm ...

Did the second trial jury know this?

The thing is, if Evans thought she was consenting, he's not guilty of rape, just of being a massive cunt.

Now put yourself in the juror's shoes, and you hear him say she consented at the time, and other people say they've had sex with her where she consented at the time and forgot afterwards.

That's reasonable doubt.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 14, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> No. I just don't like you. Off you fuck.


Irrelevant to the argument. Hope you're never selected for jury service. It's people like you that lead to miscarriages of justice.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

bimble said:


> Lets not go there. If you want to accuse them of rape maybe explain why though.



Had Evans been found guilty of rape for a second time today, his actions were incredibly similar to the actions of the two men who gave testimony not in exchange for £50k. 

"She didn't seem that drunk" was what they said.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 14, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Had Evans been found guilty of rape for a second time today, his actions were incredibly similar to the actions of the two men who gave testimony not in exchange for £50k.
> 
> "She didn't seem that drunk" was what they said.


Again, if they thought she was consenting, it's not rape.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Hmmm ...
> 
> Did the second trial jury know this?
> 
> ...



As said, I don't think the pros did a very good job here. The two blokes who didn't testify for £50k, their evidence could and it seems did sow enough reasonable doubt.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Again, if they thought she was consenting, it's not rape.



And if they didn't care either way, what then?


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Again, if they thought she was consenting, it's not rape.


This is the thing. Otherwise we have to change the law so that rape is defined by breathaliser test or something.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 14, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And if they didn't care either way, what then?


Well then they're cunts, but not necessarily rapists.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well then they're cunts, but not necessarily rapists.



This is what the case is about. Woman is so drunk she possibly can't give consent, man doesn't care so dives in and fucks her. Man doesn't ask her name, or speak so much as a word to her...


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 14, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> As said, I don't think the pros did a very good job here. The two blokes who didn't testify for £50k, their evidence could and it seems did sow enough reasonable doubt.


What if it's true?

Don't forget, she didn't say she didn't consent, just that she couldn't remember. And then there are other people saying that it's happened with them.

IF it's true, Evans didn't rape her.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 14, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> This is what the case is about. Woman is so drunk she possibly can't give consent, man doesn't care so dives in and fucks her. Man doesn't ask her name, or speak so much as a word to her...


He claimed that the other guy that was shagging her when he walked in asked her if it was ok if his mate joined in, and she said yes.

If that's the case, he could have reasonably considered her to be consenting.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 14, 2016)

I'm pretty sure if I think a women consents  I have sex with her and then leg it thats not actually a Defence 

Ched "totally not a rapist " evans


----------



## Wilf (Oct 14, 2016)

His victim has gone through hell over this. Hard to imagine how terrified and depressed she must be feeling today.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 14, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> This is what the case is about. Woman is so drunk she possibly can't give consent, man doesn't care so dives in and fucks her. Man doesn't ask her name, or speak so much as a word to her...


Cause men and women always want to know the name of the person they have sex with?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 14, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> This is what the case is about. *Woman is so drunk she possibly can't give consent*, man doesn't care so dives in and fucks her. Man doesn't ask her name, or speak so much as a word to her...


This has been the point of issue from the start. In the first incarnation of this thread, following the guilty verdict, it was discussed at length. Just because you blacked out and have lost hours of your life that you can't remember the next day, that does not mean you were an incoherent, semi-conscious mess all through those lost hours and incapable of giving consent. It just means that your brain stopped laying down new memories for that period.

And various posters were called some very fucking nasty things for pointing this out.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 14, 2016)

Aww poor rapey men. Did their feelings get hurt? 

Here's an idea. If a woman is so drunk she's slipping in and out of consciousness, don't have sex with her.


----------



## gosub (Oct 14, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> Double jeopardy has been revised so that there can be another trial. Revised in light of Angus sinclair and world's end murders case.



I know.  That to me is wrong. That did such a shit job in 2007, that they couldn't even get a not proven they really shouldn't have been allowed another go.  And to under mine the principle on a bloke whose banged up for life any way. Not a good look for Scottish Justice.	Nice pub though.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 14, 2016)

trashpony said:


> If a woman is so drunk she's slipping in and out of consciousness, don't have sex with her.


What if she doesn't seem to be, and she says "yes"?


----------



## Gromit (Oct 14, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Aww poor rapey men. Did their feelings get hurt?
> 
> Here's an idea. If a woman is so drunk she's slipping in and out of consciousness, don't have sex with her.


You know for a fact that she was slipping in and out of consciousness? Out of curiosity how do you know this?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> What if she doesn't seem to be, and she says "yes"?




She pissed the fucking bed.

Do you fuck women in that state? I really fucking hope you don't.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 14, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> She pissed the fucking bed.
> 
> Do you fuck women in that state? I really fucking hope you don't.


Of course not. But did she piss the bed before during or after the act? This isn't about whether or not Evans behaved like a dispicable shit bag; that's a given.

It's about whether or not he was guilty of rape.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Of course not. But did she piss the bed before But this isn't about whether or not Evans behaved like a dispicable shit bag; that's a given.
> 
> It's about whether or not he was guilty of rape.



The question is even if she said yes, was she in any position for that yes to mean genuine consent.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

quelle surprise, lbc phone in just started, 'with the ched Evans result in, should defendants in rape cases be given anonymity' and every call is saying women make up rape stories to wreck men's lives. First caller started by saying, "poor Ched..."


----------



## bimble (Oct 14, 2016)

this is helpful, clarifies things, in terms of what just actually happened legally. 
The Secret Barrister


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Oct 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> so no one to leave a court in scotland will ever be innocent.



Rather like those with whom the Urbanati disagree


----------



## Wilf (Oct 14, 2016)

In terms of what was actually put in front of them, I'm not surprised the jury came back with not guilty, as a reasonable doubt. When you throw all the justice and private investigators you can buy at a case, it's not surprising you can turn a victims sex life against her. 

Part of the problem is that some of the witness statements were so tainted by promised payments, as discussed above.  The other though is I just don't fucking believe Evans for a fucking minute - either that he thought she'd given consent or that he even cared whether she had or hadn't. fuck him and fuck Chesterfield.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 14, 2016)

This is a dark, dark day for British justice. A woman's sexual history has been allowed to be used as evidence, two witnesses changed their story to tie in with the accused, and a judge has written off an offer of £50,000 as not constituting a bribe.

It's a victory for misogyny and for fewer rape prosecutions and even fewer women wanting to come forward. It's nothing to celebrate and the petty point scoring from some of the men on this thread is utterly contemptible. Shame on you.


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Oct 14, 2016)

trashpony said:


> This is a dark, dark day for British justice. A woman's sexual history has been allowed to be used as evidence, two witnesses changed their story to tie in with the accused, and a judge has written off an offer of £50,000 as not constituting a bribe.
> 
> It's a victory for misogyny and for fewer rape prosecutions and even fewer women wanting to come forward. It's nothing to celebrate and the petty point scoring from some of the men on this thread is utterly contemptible. Shame on you.



Are you saying the 7 women on the jury who returned not guilty were acting out of misogyny?


----------



## Shirl (Oct 14, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> Are you saying the 7 women on the jury who returned not guilty were acting out of misogyny?


I think she's saying more about the judge than the jury.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 14, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The question is even if she said yes, was she in any position for that yes to mean genuine consent.


That's another question. 

The one at issue here is whether or not Evans could reasonably have considered her to have given consent at the time. That's it. That's the law. 

If you don't like that law, then that's another discussion, but under the law, as it stands, if he thought she was consenting (and if she said "yes" it's not unreasonable to believe he did), then it wasn't rape. That's what the jury decided on.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 14, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> Are you saying the 7 women on the jury who returned not guilty were acting out of misogyny?


You didn't ask me, but no, it's unlikely. More likely that the case was allowed to proceed along lines that made not guilty a likely outcome. But because those jurors might not be misogynists, it doesn't mean the outcome isn't a victory for misogyny (and wealth).


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> That's another question.
> 
> The one at issue here is whether or not Evans could reasonably have considered her to have given consent at the time. That's it. That's the law.
> 
> If you don't like that law, then that's another discussion, but under the law, as it stands, if he thought she was consenting (and if she said "yes" it's not unreasonable to believe he did), then it wasn't rape. That's what the jury decided on.




No it ain't. The jury was asked whether she was capable of giving consent. Evans said from the start he thought she had given consent, she did not remember anything and never for a second said she did or did not said yes to McDonald's question. The case hinged on whether she had the capacity for her yes to be meaningful.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 14, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> Are you saying the 7 women on the jury who returned not guilty were acting out of misogyny?



Are you suggesting that women too can't be swayed/affected by or internalise patriarchal attitudes with regard other women's behaviour and have misogynistic values?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> No it ain't. The jury was asked whether she was capable of giving consent. Evans said from the start he thought she had given consent, she did not remember anything and never for a second said she did or did not said yes to McDonald's question. The case hinged on whether she had the capacity for her yes to be meaningful.




Re reading that I'm not being clear, but have to bigger off for a bit.


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Oct 14, 2016)

Wilf said:


> You didn't ask me, but no, it's unlikely. More likely that the case was allowed to proceed along lines that made not guilty a likely outcome. But because those jurors might not be misogynists, it doesn't mean the outcome isn't a victory for misogyny (and wealth).



I like your reply, Wilf, because it makes a non-emotional argument. And a pretty good one at that.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 14, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Are you suggesting that women too can't be swayed/affected or internalise patriarchal attitudes with regard other women's behaviour and have misogynistic values?


Are you saying that it's so prevalent that 7 women are likely to?


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Oct 14, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Are you suggesting that women too can't be swayed/affected or internalise patriarchal attitudes with regard other women's behaviour and have misogynistic values?



Oh bloody hell, are you saying that even when women make a decision it's not their responsibility?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 14, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> Oh bloody hell, are you saying that even when women make a decision it's not their responsibility?



No I am asking you to answer a question that is impossible for you to answer meaningfully without generalising just like the one you asked  trashpony to answer. It's pointless to throw at her the fact that some of the jurors are women. You don't win anything nor does it strengthen the decision.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

trashpony said:


> This is a dark, dark day for British justice. A woman's sexual history has been allowed to be used as evidence, two witnesses changed their story to tie in with the accused, and a judge has written off an offer of £50,000 as not constituting a bribe.
> 
> It's a victory for misogyny and for fewer rape prosecutions and even fewer women wanting to come forward. It's nothing to celebrate and the petty point scoring from some of the men on this thread is utterly contemptible. Shame on you.


You should read bimble's helpful link instead of talking rot


bimble said:


> this is helpful, clarifies things, in terms of what just actually happened legally.
> The Secret Barrister


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Are you saying that it's so prevalent that 7 women are likely to?


Oh fuck off you useless wanker


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 14, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Irrelevant to the argument. Hope you're never selected for jury service. It's people like you that lead to miscarriages of justice.



You're letting the state off . The police off. The CPS off. A Jury is as good as the evidence presented to it.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 14, 2016)

gosub said:


> I know.  That to me is wrong. That did such a shit job in 2007, that they couldn't even get a not proven they really shouldn't have been allowed another go.  And to under mine the principle on a bloke whose banged up for life any way. Not a good look for Scottish Justice.	Nice pub though.


It wasn't that the fiscal did a shit job the first time round, the judge took a decision that some questioned whether he really had the authority to make.  Yes, sinclair was already in prison but it didn't mean he shouldn't be prosecuted for committing two horrific crimes.


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Oct 14, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> No I am asking you to answer a question that is impossible for you to answer meaningfully without generalising just like the one you asked  trashpony to answer. It's pointless to throw at her the fact that some of the jurors are women. You don't win anything nor does it strengthen the decision.



OK.

But if it's impossible for me to answer without generalising, then touché of course, because your bias is also apparent.

Naturally, people are swayed by their circumstances and prejudices. No prizes for pointing that out.

The question I asked was [paraphrase] "did the the mostly female jury act out of misogyny? Or the presented evidence?"

Or were they swayed by something else? What is your view?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 14, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> OK.
> 
> But if it's impossible for me to answer without generalising, then touché of course, because your bias is also apparent.



Is it? Want to spell that out for me? Then I will answer your questions below. Just so we know where we are starting from and exactly what you are assuming of me/projecting. 



> Naturally, people are swayed by their circumstances and prejudices. No prizes for pointing that out.



Oh and while you are at it perhaps you can outline what 'circumstances and prejudices' you are being swayed by?


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Oct 14, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Is it? Want to spell that out for me? Then I will answer your questions below. Just so we know where we are starting from and exactly what you are assuming of me/projecting.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and while you are at it perhaps you can outline what 'circumstances and prejudices' you are being swayed by?



You didn't answer my questions below like you promised :-(


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 14, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> You didn't answer my questions below like you promised :-(



I said I would once you clarify...
1. your assertion of me, namely that my '_bias is also apparent' _
2. your position in terms of the _'circumstances and prejudices'_ you are being swayed by.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> You should read bimble's helpful link instead of talking rot


Nothing in the link contradicts what I said. Both witnesses suddenly remembered that she had used the same phrase after Evans' conviction and after the £50k offer was made on his website. If you look on the Wales Online website you can read a fairly thorough account of the retrial.

The whole thing is dodgy as fuck.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Nothing in the link contradicts what I said. Both witnesses suddenly remembered that she had used the same phrase after Evans' conviction and after the £50k offer was made on his website. If you look on the Wales Online website you can read a fairly thorough account of the retrial.
> 
> The whole thing is dodgy as fuck.


So you believe two witnesses committed perjury.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> So you believe two witnesses committed perjury.


Yes. Why not? It's their word against hers and we all know she's a fucking lying slag


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Yes. Why not? It's their word against hers and we all know she's a fucking lying slag


What's she lied about?


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Oct 14, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I said I would once you clarify...
> 1. your assertion of me, namely that my '_bias is also apparent' _
> 2. your position in terms of the _'circumstances and prejudices'_ you are being swayed by.



I bet you get your own way a lot 

Not this time though.


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Oct 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> So you believe two witnesses committed perjury.



Why does it matter if the whole British justice system is unjust anyway?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> So you believe two witnesses committed perjury.



The two witnesses have anonymity. The hotel receptionist was offered that, but decided to reject it in order to offer this hard evidence:

Ched Evans' fiancee Natasha Massey offered £50k reward for evidence on Facebook | Daily Mail Online




> It can now be reported that, following the jury's verdict in the first trial, Miss Massey contacted the witness in an act described as 'akin to bribery' by the prosecution.
> 
> She sent two messages to Mr Burrough, the first at 12.12pm on May 6 2013.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The two witnesses have anonymity. The hotel receptionist was offered that, but decided to reject it in order to offer this hard evidence:
> 
> Ched Evans' fiancee Natasha Massey offered £50k reward for evidence on Facebook | Daily Mail Online


I suppose she saved a few quid for the jury too


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Oct 14, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The two witnesses have anonymity. The hotel receptionist was offered that, but decided to reject it in order to offer this hard evidence:
> 
> Ched Evans' fiancee Natasha Massey offered £50k reward for evidence on Facebook | Daily Mail Online



So 50K might inspire some new witnesses, but how doesn't it convince the jury of his guilt?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> So 50K might inspire some new witnesses, but how doesn't it convince the jury of his guilt?



What?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> So 50K might inspire some new witnesses, but how doesn't it convince the jury of his guilt?


It was intended to secure evidence to prove his innocence


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> I suppose she saved a few quid for the jury too



The jury were not allowed to be told of her attempted bribery of the receptionist. They were weakly informed of the offer of the 'reward' in the questioning of the two killer witnesses.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 14, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> Rather like those with whom the Urbanati disagree


who did you use to be?
London Calling?


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Oct 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> It was intended to secure evidence to prove his innocence



I meant "how does giving someone 50K make a jury think you're innocent"?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 14, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> I bet you get your own way a lot
> 
> Not this time though.



Ah so not willing to engage with me clearly and honestly? ...and somehow that is my fault? All righty then.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> I meant "how does giving someone 50K make a jury think you're innocent"?


Yeh? So why didn't you say that?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The jury were not allowed to be told of her attempted bribery of the receptionist. They were weakly informed of the offer of the 'reward' in the questioning of the two killer witnesses.


Oh, I see: the judge was in it too


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Oct 14, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Ah so not willing to engage with me clearly and honestly? ...and somehow that is my fault? All righty then.


Yes I am, but "clearly and honestly" doesn't necessarily mean "blah blah accuse you of your fault"


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Oct 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh? So why didn't you say that?


Because I don't owe you a fucking explanation for everything I say.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> Yes I am, but "clearly and honestly" doesn't necessarily mean "blah blah accuse you of your fault"


It's not easy to make me sorry for the Queen but you've managed it by using her as your avatar. What did she ever do to deserve it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> Because I don't owe you a fucking explanation for everything I say.


No, it's because you're full of shit


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Oh, I see: the judge was in it too



Judges can't ask for a witness to be called, that is for the prosecution or defence to do.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Judges can't ask for a witness to be called, that is for the prosecution or defence to do.


Yes. But you said the jury was only told weakly about the money. And who does the allowing in a crown court?


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Oct 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> It's not easy to make me sorry for the Queen but you've managed it by using her as your avatar. What did she ever do to deserve it?



Thanks for joining the conversation, but it's really between me and Rutita1


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Oct 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> No, it's because you're full of shit


Ok, thanks for the heads up


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> Thanks for joining the conversation, but it's really between me and Rutita1


Not really how it works

Don't think you're really cut out for urban


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes. But you said the jury was only told weakly about the money. And who does the allowing in a crown court?



The crown prosecutor weakly done it. No allowing there, just a shit pros.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 14, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> Yes I am, but "clearly and honestly" doesn't necessarily mean "blah blah accuse you of your fault"



Stop fannying about then. Either you are going to be honest about your assumptions of me and your own prejudices or not. Up to you.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 14, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> who did you use to be?
> London Calling?



What makes you think that? Didn't LC disappear after some racial abuse of a former poster?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 14, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The crown prosecutor weakly done it. No allowing there, just a shit pros.


the judge prevented the jury seeing messages.


----------



## gosub (Oct 14, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> It wasn't that the fiscal did a shit job the first time round, the judge took a decision that some questioned whether he really had the authority to make.  Yes, sinclair was already in prison but it didn't mean he shouldn't be prosecuted for committing two horrific crimes.



Double jeapody is a decent concept though.  Granted the accused in the cases both in England and Scotland are wrongun's but its a slippery slope.  If you are going to prosecute get it right first time.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 14, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> What makes you think that? Didn't LC disappear after some racial abuse of a former poster?


The Urbanati comment. Deffo a returner.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> What's she lied about?


I don't know exactly. That's what the witness said who bravely came forward. Given that she can't remember anything and didn't lodge a rape allegation - the police decided that on the witness/defendant evidence - it's not clear what she's supposed to be lying about


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 14, 2016)

gosub said:


> Double jeapody is a decent concept though.  Granted the accused in the cases both in England and Scotland are wrongun's but its a slippery slope.  If you are going to prosecute get it right first time.


Yep. Changing that has made for bad law and increased the scope for state abuse of power. That the law was changed because of the Stephen Lawrence case makes it emotionally hard to oppose the change, but it was still wrong to do.


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 14, 2016)

is it time to start posting pictures of fish yet


*gets coat*


----------



## Raheem (Oct 14, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. Changing that has made for bad law and increased the scope for state abuse of power. That the law was changed because of the Stephen Lawrence case makes it emotionally hard to oppose the change, but it was still wrong to do.



Don't know about this. Are there many documented cases of the state abusing its power by carrying our retrials?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 14, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Don't know about this. Are there many documented cases of the state abusing its power by carrying our retrials?


The UK is in a very small minority around the world in allowing double jeopardy, which it didn't allow for around 800 years. In the 10 years it's been allowed, it's not been abused. Yet.  

One of the many examples of the Blair govt trampling on basic principles in response to populism. The real story of the failure of the Lawrence case was not the failure of the legal system, but the failure of the racist police force.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 14, 2016)

From a legal standpoint is that it now? He could never be retried? Or this hearing scrutinized?


----------



## two sheds (Oct 14, 2016)

Could it theoretically go to the House of Lords?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 14, 2016)

Grandma Death said:


> From a legal standpoint is that it now? He could never be retried? Or this hearing scrutinized?


About the only way this could go to a third trial would be if the prosecution had evidence the jury had been bribed or otherwise interfered with. Absent that, this is over and should be over. A third trial would be a complete joke.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 14, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Could it theoretically go to the House of Lords?


On what grounds?


----------



## two sheds (Oct 14, 2016)

dunno, was just wondering theoretically since House of Lords is highest court, but I'm not sure whether this sort of case could go before it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 14, 2016)

two sheds said:


> dunno, was just wondering theoretically since House of Lords is highest court, but I'm not sure whether this sort of case could go before it.


To overrule a jury's acquittal? There would need to be very strong grounds for the cps to take this further. I don't know of any.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 14, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The UK is in a very small minority around the world in allowing double jeopardy, which it didn't allow for around 800 years. In the 10 years it's been allowed, it's not been abused. Yet.
> 
> One of the many examples of the Blair govt trampling on basic principles in response to populism. The real story of the failure of the Lawrence case was not the failure of the legal system, but the failure of the racist police force.



True, although you missed out "corrupt". All the same, it doesn't seem like the right policy response to that would be to insist that police racism (or corruption, or incompetence etc) is simply good luck for murderers.

On the other hand, I do find it hard to see how allowing double jeopardy might, *in itself*, lead to injustice.


----------



## Looby (Oct 14, 2016)

two sheds said:


> dunno, was just wondering theoretically since House of Lords is highest court, but I'm not sure whether this sort of case could go before it.


That's the Supreme Court. Don't think it's been the lords for several years.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 14, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> To overrule a jury's acquittal? There would need to be very strong grounds for the cps to take this further. I don't know of any.



perhaps to challenge the ruling that the circumstances of the £50 grand should have been brought before the jury?

dunno as i say though.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 14, 2016)

I dont get the judges comments on consent. Didnt he say drunken consent is still consent? I thought the laws around consent whilst not being of fit body and mind were clear on this?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 14, 2016)

Raheem said:


> On the other hand, I do find it hard to see how allowing double jeopardy might, *in itself*, lead to injustice.


You have your day in court and are given the chance to clear your name. That's the principle that's been thrown out. Being tried once seriously fucks with your life. Being tried twice might totally ruin it, even if you're found not guilty both times, so at whatever point in the future this rule is applied and the accused is acquitted the second time as well, that will be an injustice. That amounts to state persecution.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 14, 2016)

Grandma Death said:


> I dont get the judges comments on consent. Didnt he say drunken consent is still consent? I thought the laws around consent whilst not being of fit body and mind were clear on this?


How can drunken consent not be consent, though? It has to be. Otherwise, probably most of the people of Britain could be prosecuted for rape.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 14, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How can drunken consent not be consent, though? It has to be. Otherwise, probably most of the people of Britain could be prosecuted for rape.




Dont know. Im asking. It seemed a key part of the prosecution first time around? Although they argued she didnt give clear consent?


----------



## Raheem (Oct 14, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You have your day in court and are given the chance to clear your name. That's the principle that's been thrown out. Being tried once seriously fucks with your life. Being tried twice might totally ruin it, even if you're found not guilty both times, so at whatever point in the future this rule is applied and the accused is acquitted the second time as well, that will be an injustice. That amounts to state persecution.



Yes, but if being tried once seriously fucks with your life, maybe the logical thing is to never put people who are not guilty on trial. There's an obvious difficulty, though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 14, 2016)

Grandma Death said:


> Dont know. Im asking. It seemed a key part of the prosecution first time around? Although they argued she didnt give clear consent?


Think the argument first time round was that she was not conscious when the intercourse took place. There was never any evidence that she wasn't conscious. What there was was a very misguided defence team attacking her and calling her a liar, when the defence that she had been conscious but didn't remember because of an alcohol-related blackout always seemed the obvious line to take. My reading of that when I read up on the first case was that the jury convicted Evans because he was clearly such a cunt and they didn't want to believe him and disliked intensely his attack on his accuser. He is still a total cunt for that night's activities, rapist or not.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 14, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Yes, but if being tried once seriously fucks with your life, maybe the logical thing is to never put people who are not guilty on trial. There's an obvious difficulty, though.


The state gets one go. Its scope for fucking with people is there, in that it is deemed necessary to allow prosecution, but limited. It's the compromise that most countries have, tbh. In the US it's written into the constitution as a basic right, as it is in many other places


----------



## purenarcotic (Oct 14, 2016)

The law says that it isn't consent if due to the consumption of drugs / alcohol the person lacks the capacity to consent / is unaware what's going on. So you can be pissed and consent but may get to a point where you become so drunk you become incapable of giving informed consent.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 14, 2016)

Just found this on consent:

"
Consent

*Rape and Sexual Offences:
Chapter 3: Consent*
Contents:


Sexual Offences Act 1956
Sexual Offences Act 2003
Statutory definition of consent
Reasonable belief in consent
Evidential presumptions (section 75)
Conclusive presumptions (section 76)
'Conditional' Consent

Transgender suspects
Evidential considerations
Public Interest considerations

*Sexual Offences Act 1956*
The Sexual offences Act 1956 contains no statutory definition of 'consent'. Juries must be told that the word should be given its ordinary meaning, and that there is a difference between 'consent' and 'submission'.

Lack of consent may be demonstrated by:


The complainant's assertion of force or threats;
Evidence that by reason of drink, drugs, sleep, age or mental disability the complainant was unaware of what was occurring and/ or incapable of giving valid consent; or
Evidence that the complainant was deceived as to the identity of the person with whom (s)he had intercourse.
A boy or girl under the age of 16 cannot consent in law, (Archbold 2004, 20-152)."


----------



## purenarcotic (Oct 14, 2016)

The case that examined this was R vs Bree (2007)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 14, 2016)

purenarcotic said:


> The law says that it isn't consent if due to the consumption of drugs / alcohol the person lacks the capacity to consent / is unaware what's going on. So you can be pissed and consent but may get to a point where you become so drunk you become incapable of giving informed consent.


Yes, thought it was something like that. In other words, it's not really about whether or not you're drunk, and the lowered inhibitions of being drunk don't amount to lacking consent. It has to be a lack of understanding of what is being consented to, whatever has caused that lack of understanding, which might be alcohol. 

Pretty sensible - not sure the law could be otherwise, tbh.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 14, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The state gets one go. Its scope for fucking with people is there, in that it is deemed necessary to allow prosecution, but limited. It's the compromise that most countries have, tbh. In the US it's written into the constitution as a basic right, as it is in many other places



My point is that it's obviously unfair to be put on trial for something you didn't do. But it's not automatically an abuse of power. To be put on trial for something you didn't do twice is doubly unfair. But still not automatically an abuse of power. If, as you say above, this hasn't actually happened in the ten years since double jeopardy ended, how often do we think it would occur? Let's say that, over the next 90 years it happens once. But let's also say that it prevents two murders and allows one family a year to have society recognise a crime done to them. Would it really be better the other way around?


----------



## The Octagon (Oct 14, 2016)

To be honest this is a horrible case legally to try and decide as a jury, I don't envy them at all. 

As far as the facts (verdict) of the first case go she consented to sex with McDonald and Evans turned up midway through. 

How is a jury supposed to decide at what point she was beyond consent to agree to Evans joining in, when she cannot recall the events? How do they make that call with any certainty? 

It's horrible, and the fact the court allowed extra testimony after a monetary reward was offered just makes the whole thing sordid and fucked up. 

I feel so sorry for the girl, who probably wishes the whole thing would go away at this point, she's had to move and change her surname because of fuckwits who don't understand she had nothing to do with the prosecution of Evans 

What an absolute shitshow.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 14, 2016)

The Octagon said:


> How is a jury supposed to decide at what point she was beyond consent to agree to Evans joining in, when she cannot recall the events? How do they make that call with any certainty?.


They don't need to. The onus is on the Crown to prove guilt. If they only have the word of Evans and his mate to go on, their version is plausible, and there is nobody and no other evidence to contradict them, then they go free. They don't need to know that he's innocent, merely to decide that the case is not proven.

I and others got slammed earlier on this thread for suggesting the above , but the original case looked shaky as fuck to me for this reason.


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Oct 14, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Not really how it works
> 
> Don't think you're really cut out for urban



Probably not, but being "cut out for urban" is more your aspiration than mine.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 14, 2016)

Looby said:


> That's the Supreme Court. Don't think it's been the lords for several years.



Yes you seem to be correct. 

Retrograde step in my opinion, there's no substitute for 811 toffs being the ultimate decision makers on points of law.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 14, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They don't need to. The onus is on the Crown to prove guilt. If they only have the word of Evans and his mate to go on, their version is plausible, and there is nobody and no other evidence to contradict them, then they go free. They don't need to know that he's innocent, merely to decide that the case is not proven.
> 
> I and others got slammed earlier on this thread for suggesting the above , but the original case looked shaky as fuck to me for this reason.


All rape cases that hinge on the testimony of a man versus of a woman are shaky as fuck.

Which is why most rape victims, including me, don't go to the police. Because we know we haven't got a hope in hell of being believed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 14, 2016)

trashpony said:


> You're right. All rape cases that hinge on the testimony of a man versus of a woman are shaky as fuck.


The testimony of the woman was 'I don't remember'. I believe her. There was other stuff she did that night that she didn't remember as well.


----------



## mrs quoad (Oct 15, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Yes, but if being tried once seriously fucks with your life, maybe the logical thing is to never put people who are not guilty on trial. There's an obvious difficulty, though.


Japan: 99.7% conviction rate. 

Sorted.


----------



## keybored (Oct 15, 2016)

Sasaferrato said:


> It will be interesting to see if any of the bigger clubs will now sign him, I suspect that they won't.



He'll just get them drunk then sign himself up anyway.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The UK is in a very small minority around the world in allowing double jeopardy, which it didn't allow for around 800 years. In the 10 years it's been allowed, it's not been abused. Yet.
> 
> One of the many examples of the Blair govt trampling on basic principles in response to populism. The real story of the failure of the Lawrence case was not the failure of the legal system, but the failure of the racist police force.




Er not so much institutional racism but old school Corruption 
  It wasn't so much the met are racist which was why their wanst a c*onviction *although they are it was more the dective in charge was paid off


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 15, 2016)

two sheds said:


> Yes you seem to be correct.
> 
> Retrograde step in my opinion, there's no substitute for 811 toffs being the ultimate decision makers on points of law.


They never were, or at least, not since the C19th. It was only Law Lords (judges) who heard the appeal.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, thought it was something like that. In other words, it's not really about whether or not you're drunk, and the lowered inhibitions of being drunk don't amount to lacking consent. It has to be a lack of understanding of what is being consented to, whatever has caused that lack of understanding, which might be alcohol.
> 
> Pretty sensible - not sure the law could be otherwise, tbh.




Hooray, you finally get it.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 15, 2016)

This case should never have gone to court in the first place.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 15, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> This case should never have gone to court in the first place.



You're right. Rapey bastard should have been lynched in Rhyl town centre the day after his crime and we could all have moved on.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 15, 2016)

.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

I think the word rapey should go away. It helps nothing and trivialises the whole issue.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 15, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> This case should never have gone to court in the first place.


Why?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Why?


But answer came there none


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

SqueakyBumTime said:


> Probably not, but being "cut out for urban" is more your aspiration than mine.


Pisspoor


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 15, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Why?



Drunk people have sex.  One of the drunk people doesn't remember it the next day.  

Happens all the time.  Not rape.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 15, 2016)

Wasn't her original concern that she had been spiked though?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Wasn't her original concern that she had been spiked though?


Yes, this is gone through in the handy link bimble posted


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 15, 2016)

She went to the police to report her missing handbag.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Happens all the time.  Not rape.


Jury at Caernarfon Crown Court said it was. 
Of course that was before the victim's 'sexual history' was considered.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 15, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> She went to the police to report her missing handbag.


who then told her what had happened.
You seem to be on the side of people like this:


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 15, 2016)

Ched Evans trial is a masterclass in why women don't report rape


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> . He is still a total cunt for that night's activities, rapist or not.



Pretty much sums up my attitude to it


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 15, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> who then told her what had happened.
> You seem to be on the side of people like this:
> View attachment 93962


Don't be mad. Of course i'm not on their "side"!


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 15, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Drunk people have sex.  One of the drunk people doesn't remember it the next day.
> 
> Happens all the time.  Not rape.


It's rape if one party is so drunk that they are unable to give consent as has been made perfectly clear on the last couple of pages. To deny that is vile.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 15, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Don't be mad. Of course i'm not on their "side"!


i say you are if you think you shouldn't prosecute conscious people for having sex with unconscious people


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 15, 2016)

Who says she was unconscious?


----------



## Chilli.s (Oct 15, 2016)

The CPS press charges and create two victims out of one enquiry the police had about a missing handbag. Still, the law made money and justified their jobs, also have a high profile case to add to their cv's.


----------



## killer b (Oct 15, 2016)

Chilli.s said:


> Still, the law made money and justified their jobs, also have a high profile case to add to their cv's.


in a  thread full of fucking stupid posts, this is a new contender for stupidest. take a bow.


----------



## Chilli.s (Oct 15, 2016)

Gee thanks.


----------



## keithy (Oct 15, 2016)

People need to make sure they don't let this slide. This was overturned because they allowed testimonies from her past sexual partners. DO NOT LET THIS BE FORGOTTEN. This is really important and is going to stop lots of people coming forward to report rape and sexual assault. I didn't report mine because I felt like I'd be dismissed as a slut.


----------



## keithy (Oct 15, 2016)

Very angry and upset about this whole thing and people's reactions are sickening.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 15, 2016)

keithy said:


> Very angry and upset about this whole thing and people's reactions are sickening.


I feel the same

That twitter screengrab is terrifying. So many men really, really hate women


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> I feel the same
> 
> That twitter screengrab is terrifying. So many men really, really hate women


I don't disagree with the sentiment of the last 2 posts at all, but I think both might have benefitted from the inclusion of the word "some".


----------



## trashpony (Oct 15, 2016)

brogdale said:


> I don't disagree with the sentiment of the last 2 posts at all, but I think both might have benefitted from the inclusion of the word "some".


Where would you put the some? 

Oh sorry NOT ALL MEN. Is that what you meant? <yawn>


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Where would you put the some?
> 
> Oh sorry NOT ALL MEN. Is that what you meant? <yawn>


<yawn>? Really?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 15, 2016)

It feels like a massive leap backwards. I still can't quite believe it was allowed.


----------



## killer b (Oct 15, 2016)

brogdale said:


> <yawn>? Really?


it's fair enough brogdale, you did just do a textbook _not all men... _


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Where would you put the some?
> 
> Oh sorry NOT ALL MEN. Is that what you meant? <yawn>



A dozen or so arseholes on Facebook are certainly not representative of all men . And it's an insult to everyone's intelligence to suggest it does. There's some very good and important points being made here about the ability of the Evans defence to offer bribes and to have a woman's sexual history introduced , stuff I find pretty disturbing . If your going to derail it with this type of bollocks nobody's even going to bother listening .


----------



## trashpony (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> I feel the same
> 
> That twitter screengrab is terrifying. So many men really, really hate women


So brogdale - where would you put the word 'some' in this post?


----------



## killer b (Oct 15, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> A dozen or so arseholes on Facebook are certainly not representative of all men . And it's an insult to everyone's intelligence to suggest it does.


she hasn't done that, so it's all good.


----------



## killer b (Oct 15, 2016)

so keen on telling a woman to shut up that you didn't bother reading her post.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> So brogdale - where would you put the word 'some' in this post?


OK, I'll row back a bit and say...perhaps it was the other (previous) post's omission that I was reacting to. I suppose I was suggesting 'some' instead of 'so many'...but that changes your meaning. 
I retract. Wasn't trying to give offence.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 15, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> A dozen or so arseholes on Facebook are certainly not representative of all men . And it's an insult to everyone's intelligence to suggest it does. There's some very good and important points being made here about the ability of the Evans defence to offer bribes and to have a woman's sexual history introduced , stuff I find pretty disturbing . If your going to derail it with this type of bollocks nobody's even going to bother listening .


Oh it's not a dozen. Twitter yesterday was terrifying. For everyone one of those, there are a dozen more. And a dozen more behind them. Caroline Criado-Perez received threats and abuse from nearly 100 different people, including death threats. Her crime? Campaigning to have a woman on a bank note. 

There are a lot of men who really, really hate women and stuff like this fuels that hatred.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> so keen on telling a woman to shut up that you didn't bother reading her post.



Did I just mansplain something?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It feels like a massive leap backwards. I still can't quite believe it was allowed.


Tbh this is all well explained by bimble's link I have referred to before. The Secret Barrister explains the exceptional circumstances which led to the appeal court deciding the new evidence needed to be tested before a jury.


----------



## killer b (Oct 15, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Did I just mansplain something?


no.
.


----------



## RubyBlue (Oct 15, 2016)

I have operated in a total blackout many times and people just haven't realised how totally out of it I am - I come across as a bit pissed and certainly not drunk enough to not give consent when in reality the opposite is true. If, in a blackout she behaves in a similar way to me then Evans could easily think she was a bit pissed but able to consent easily enough.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Tbh this is all well explained by bimble's link I have referred to before. The Secret Barrister explains the exceptional circumstances which led to the appeal court deciding the new evidence needed to be tested before a jury.



The former Solicitor General thinks the decision was wrong. She was the one that got sexual history banned from court in 1999 and says that this case did not meet the threshold she set for it to be brought up.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

God, this thread is almost as depressing as the result itself, tho maybe I should be grateful it's just the usual suspects behaving like scumbags.

That a man can claim he gained consent from a woman he never even spoke to is appalling. That a judge can allow a woman's sexual history to be discussed simply because she may have said 'fuck me harder' is a disgrace. And this will have knock on effects on other cases, sets a horrible precedent to young men (in particular) who are already clueless enough about consent, and why some women sometimes take part in 'risky' behaviour. More rapists will get away with it thanks to this case.  And some fuckwits will come on here, and on the radio, and every other bloody place, and demand that we recognise these rapists innocence.  Fucking wankers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The former Solicitor General thinks the decision was wrong. She was the one that got sexual history banned from court in 1999 and says that this case did not meet the threshold she set for it to be brought up.


she should then be campaigning for the reform of the ccrc and appeal court.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> God, this thread is almost as depressing as the result itself, tho maybe I should be grateful it's just the usual suspects behaving like scumbags.
> 
> That a man can claim he gained consent from a woman he never even spoke to is appalling. That a judge can allow a woman's sexual history to be discussed simply because she may have said 'fuck me harder' is a disgrace. And this will have knock on effects on other cases, sets a horrible precedent to young men (in particular) who are already clueless enough about consent, and why some women sometimes take part in 'risky' behaviour. More rapists will get away with it thanks to this case.  And some fuckwits will come on here, and on the radio, and every other bloody place, and demand that we recognise these rapists innocence.  Fucking wankers.



What changes in the law do you think would help? I don't know what happened in that hotel room but if a woman saying 'fuck me harder' is not consent, on the basis that she may have been very drunk, what should be done to make the law protect women better?


----------



## starfish (Oct 15, 2016)

Not sure what changes in law would help but i do know that if "some" men changed their attitudes we wouldnt need changes in law to protect women better.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> What changes in the law do you think would help? I don't know what happened in that hotel room but if a woman saying 'fuck me harder' is not consent, on the basis that she may have been very drunk, what should be done to make the law protect women better?


Her previous (supposed) history should never have been allowed in court.  Simple as that. The 'Secret Lawyer' is wrong to say this case contains no precedent - each occasion which makes use of such history sets up the limits for what can be used in other cases, and this sets the bar very low indeed. A bad day.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> Her previous (supposed) history should never have been allowed in court.  Simple as that. The 'Secret Lawyer' is wrong to say this contain no precedent, each occasion which makes use if such history sets up the limits for what can be used in other cases, and this sets the bar very low indeed. A bad day.


Fair enough, yes. Agree that the allowing of that evidence is really troubling and this high profile case will definitely put other women off from coming forward which is the last thing we needed. 
It's the idea that a woman saying 'fuck me harder' doesn't mean consent that I find difficult but maybe I misunderstood your post.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 15, 2016)

A little of topic but what do people think of this article?

What if there’s more sexual violence now, not just reports of it? | Joan Smith

When I heard the statistics the other day I wondered the same? I am worried that there is a good chance that the number of rapes is actually increasing not just the reporting of it. But I do think people are getting a better understanding of what can constitute rape. 
There is even a little bit of an optimists in my that hopes that despite the travesty of the last couple of days, overall this case might have helped that process along slightly.


----------



## keithy (Oct 15, 2016)

brogdale said:


> OK, I'll row back a bit and say...*perhaps it was the other (previous) post's omission that I was reacting to*. I suppose I was suggesting 'some' instead of 'so many'...but that changes your meaning.
> I retract. Wasn't trying to give offence.



What, you mean the one where I talked about MY OWN EXPERIENCE of being sexually assaulted and how these testimonials being allowed is very likely to make people less likely to go to the police? 

If you think every time somebody doesn't specifically say 'some' then they mean all... come on. Or was it really that you can't cope with people talking about male violence towards women because OMG PPL MIGHT REALISE THAT MEN ARE VIOLENT TOWARDS WOMEN AND WOMEN DIE EVERY FUCKING DAY.

Fuck off dikk edd.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> Fair enough, yes. Agree that the allowing of that evidence is really troubling and this high profile case will definitely put other women off from coming forward which is the last thing we needed.
> It's the idea that a woman saying 'fuck me harder' doesn't mean consent that I find difficult but maybe I misunderstood your post.


Rather depends on how conscious the person saying it is, no? If they can barely get those words (that may well never have been said at all) out of their mouths, they're not conscious enough to consent.


----------



## keithy (Oct 15, 2016)

I am SICK of MEN (not some men, ALLLLLL MEN) talking about rape and sexual assault then pretending it isn't a gender issue. 

COME.

ON.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> Fair enough, yes. Agree that the allowing of that evidence is really troubling and this high profile case will definitely put other women off from coming forward which is the last thing we needed.
> It's the idea that a woman saying 'fuck me harder' doesn't mean consent that I find difficult but maybe I misunderstood your post.


Yes. The difficulty is in defining at what point someone should believe that "yes" and "fuck me harder" doesn't actually constitute consent. Legally, how do you define that?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> Her previous (supposed) history should never have been allowed in court.  Simple as that. The 'Secret Lawyer' is wrong to say this case contains no precedent - each occasion which makes use of such history sets up the limits for what can be used in other cases, and this sets the bar very low indeed. A bad day.


if you had read the blog with the attention it deserved a) you'd have noticed it's not 'the secret lawyer' but 'the secret barrister'; b) your forensic mind would have identified that one of the statements concerning X's sexual behaviour was about an event subsequent to the incident involving c.e. while the other had happened the preceding night.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> Rather depends on how conscious the person saying it is, no? If they can barely get those words (that may well never have been said at all) out of their mouths, they're not conscious enough to consent.


This goes round and round. Everybody (I think) understands that having sex with someone who is barely conscious , can't get words out etc, is rape. That is clear: If you have sex with a semi conscious woman you're a rapist. 
The only question is what if they are totally conscious but really drunk, enthusiastically consenting whilst pissed. 
(I'm just talking in general now not about this case).


----------



## brogdale (Oct 15, 2016)

keithy said:


> What, you mean the one where I talked about MY OWN EXPERIENCE of being sexually assaulted and how these testimonials being allowed is very likely to make people less likely to go to the police?
> 
> If you think every time somebody doesn't specifically say 'some' then they mean all... come on. Or was it really that you can't cope with people talking about male violence towards women because OMG PPL MIGHT REALISE THAT MEN ARE VIOLENT TOWARDS WOMEN AND WOMEN DIE EVERY FUCKING DAY.
> 
> Fuck off dikk edd.


I don't think so; I was referring to this post:-
_Very angry and upset about this whole thing and people's reactions are sickening._​Which I thought might have benefitted from the word _'some' _in front of 'people's'.
But not important and I've clearly caused upset. Sorry.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> if you had read the blog with the attention it deserved a) you'd have noticed it's not 'the secret lawyer' but 'the secret barrister'; b) your forensic mind would have identified that one of the statements concerning X's sexual behaviour was subsequent to the incident involving c.e. while the other occurred the preceding night.


your usual pedantry contributing nothing. The blogs name is irrelevant, and b) makes no difference to what I said.  Unless you can show otherwise


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> The only question is what if they are totally conscious but really drunk, enthusiastically consenting whilst pissed.
> (I'm just talking in general now not about this case).


then they're enthusiastically consenting.  I have no idea what point you are trying to make


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> your usual pedantry contributing nothing. The blogs name is irrelevant, and b) makes no difference to what I said.  Unless you can show otherwise


right. let's not let the facts get in the way of a good argument. i suppose now you'll say that when you said "her previous (supposed) history" you meant whatever you want it to mean.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> then they're enthusiastically consenting.


And if they seem to "enthusiastically consent" at the time and forget about it afterwards?


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> right. let's not let the facts get in the way of a good argument. i suppose now you'll say that when you said "her previous (supposed) history" you meant whatever you want it to mean.


Right, so your entire point is that one of the people she supposedly said this too was after she was assaulted by evans. What difference does that make regarding _precedence _- which is the key point. None.  Also, if you want to be properly pedantic, it is a 'previous' history from the juries POV, as it is still her past. 

You're not even a good pedant, just a nit picker.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> And if they seem to "enthusiastically consent" at the time and forget about it afterwards?


Do you have a point?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> Do you have a point?


Do you have an answer?

If someone appears to _enthusiastically consent_ during the act, then subsequently forgets about it, is the other party guilty of rape?


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Do you have an answer?
> 
> If someone appears to _enthusiastically consent_ during the act, then subsequently forgets about it, is the other party guilty of rape?


I don't understand why you are even asking this question, you seem to think it is saying something clever.  It isn't. The answer is obvious.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> Right, so your entire point is that one of the people she supposedly said this too was after she was assaulted by evans. What difference does that make regarding _precedence _- which is the key point. None.  Also, if you want to be properly pedantic, it is a 'previous' history from the juries POV, as it is still her past.


you say that this case sets a precedent. you are, to the best of my knowledge, not legally qualified. which makes your opinion on this case setting a precedent utterly worthless. turning to your point about being properly pedantic, there are three events which the jury considered surrounding the issue of consent.

1) 28/5/11
2) 29/5/11, the night ched evans and x met
3) two weeks after

when you bring up the issue of her previous history, that means stuff concerning events prior to 29/5/11. while the later event may have been in the past when the matter came to trial, it was not her previous history on the night of 29/5/11. the events of 29/5/11 may have been seen by the jury as similar to events both before and after, thus introducing at least an element of doubt regarding the absence of consent necessary for a second conviction.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> I don't understand why you are even asking this question ...


Then you're being an even bigger fucking idiot than usual.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

RubyBlue said:


> I have operated in a total blackout many times and people just haven't realised how totally out of it I am - I come across as a bit pissed and certainly not drunk enough to not give consent when in reality the opposite is true. If, in a blackout she behaves in a similar way to me then Evans could easily think she was a bit pissed but able to consent easily enough.


This was a really brave post. Don't think I've ever experienced total blackout but a friend of mine has several times, woken up not knowing what she did the night before. 
The way the law is at the moment, everything depends on whether the man reasonably thought that the woman was consenting, so if she acted enthusiastic and up for it then it was not rape, even if she can't remember it. The alternative to this is to change the law so that having sex with very drunk people is illegal, regardless of how they are acting at the time. So something like making them walk in a straight line. 
(again, not a comment on this case, just in general)


----------



## 1%er (Oct 15, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> View attachment 93962


The people who posted those tweets are just showing their ignorance. The fact that a jury found Evans "not guilty" doesn't mean he was "found innocent" there is no such finding in English law, it means that the prosecution didn't provide evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" of his guilt. This verdict should have no reflection on the defendant, it says nothing about her.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> Right, so your entire point is that one of the people she supposedly said this too was after she was assaulted by evans. What difference does that make regarding _precedence _- which is the key point. None.



 Seriously?

It suggests a pattern of behaviour. Namely, having what seems to others to be consensual sex, than forgetting about it afterwards.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Seriously?
> 
> It establishes a pattern of behaviour. Namely, having what seemed to others to be consensual sex, than forgetting about it afterwards.


given yer man's inability to incorporate the facts into his analysis of this case, pa, i'm not sure it's worth giving his views any further consideration.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

1%er said:


> The people who posted those tweets are just showing their ignorance. The fact that a jury found Evans "not guilty" doesn't mean he was "found innocent" there is no such finding in English law, it means that the prosecution didn't provide evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" of his guilt. This verdict should have no reflection on the defendant, it says nothing about her.


yeh, as - once again - the secret barrister shows, this by no means establishes innocence on evans' part, nor lying on x's part.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> you say that this case sets a precedent. you are, to the best of my knowledge, not legally qualified. which makes your opinion on this case setting a precedent utterly worthless.


same as the fest of us then.  But seeing as you think we must be qualified in something before being able to comment, we an now safely ignore everything you say unless its about putting books in the right order.



> turning to your point about being properly pedantic, there are three events which the jury considered surrounding the issue of consent.
> 
> 1) 28/5/11
> 2) 29/5/11, the night ched evans and x met
> ...


Still doesn't speak to what I was saying tho, does it? The point - the entire point - is around her sexual history, and it's inclusion in this case. Whether an event took place before or after her abuse by evans makes absolutely no difference. It should not have been allowed, and the fact that it was allowed creates a new boundary for how such evidence can be used.  That is precedent setting.


----------



## starfish (Oct 15, 2016)

Was his past sexual experiences brought up. Was it mentioned how many times he had cheated on his partner & lied to her?

Regardless of what she has done in the past there was obviously something not right about this encounter.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Then you're being an even bigger fucking idiot than usual.


You seem to think you are making some kind of point, other than an obvious one. But you really aren't. 


Spymaster said:


> Seriously?
> 
> It suggests a pattern of behaviour. Namely, having what seems to others to be consensual sex, than forgetting about it afterwards.


The argument you are quoting was about precedence, not about whether you believe it to be relevant or not.  So your point is completely misdirected. 

You seem to want a return to the seventies, when a victims sexual history was fair game. Uggh.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 15, 2016)

If Evans had wanted consent, he could have:
a) knocked on the door
b) not closed the curtains
c) spoken. 

He did none of those things. 

Doesn't consent - drunken or otherwise - involve a conversation between participants?


----------



## Raheem (Oct 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> What changes in the law do you think would help? I don't know what happened in that hotel room but if a woman saying 'fuck me harder' is not consent, on the basis that she may have been very drunk, what should be done to make the law protect women better?



In this particular case, it doesn't seem like there's an issue over whether "fuck me harder" constitutes consent, rather the way in which it was demonstrated to the jury that this is what the alleged victim had said. Evans' detailed account was already widely available online when a £50,000 inducement was made via social media, following which two men came forward to say that they had had sex with her, giving accounts strikingly similar to Evans'. Should this evidence have been admissible, particularly given that sexual history evidence is not supposed to be admitted lightly?


----------



## 1%er (Oct 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh, as - once again - the secret barrister shows, this by no means establishes innocence on evans' part, nor lying on x's part.


I can't understand why people are claiming she is lying, what is X lying about? My understanding is that X never accused Evans of rape, her evidence was "I have no memory of the events of that night".

Edit, I have now seen the "secret barrister post" it makes a great deal of sense


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> You seem to think you are making some kind of point, other than an obvious one. But you really aren't.
> 
> The argument you are quoting was about precedence, not about whether you believe it to be relevant or not.  So your point is completely misdirected.
> 
> You seem to want a return to the seventies, when a victims sexual history was fair game. Uggh.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

starfish said:


> Was his past sexual experiences brought up. Was it mentioned how many times he had cheated on his partner & lied to her?


The Sun front page this morning has the word GUILTY in massive red letters, heading up this take on the story, which was kind of surprising in a good way.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Oct 15, 2016)

Bit late to this. So he's been acquitted and the woman never actually accused him of rape. Who did then? How can someone be tried if there's no accusation from the victim?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Doesn't consent - drunken or otherwise - involve a conversation between participants?


Not necessarily. Do you always have a conversation about consent before you have sex? 

If one guy is having sex with her and asks her "can my friend join in?" and she replies "yes", and the other guys joins in and she says "fuck me harder" ....  why isn't it reasonable to think she's consenting?


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Bit late to this. So he's been acquitted and the woman never actually accused him of rape. Who did then? How can someone be tried if there's no accusation from the victim?


  Please fuck off


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> same as the fest of us then.  But seeing as you think we must be qualified in something before being able to comment, we an now safely ignore everything you say unless its about putting books in the right order.


that doesn't follow, not least as opinion varies greatly on what 'the right order' is. not to mention that so much of what happens now in a library has fuck all to do with books and more to do with helping people understand how to judge sources. to turn from the vagaries of information literacy as it is practiced in a library to how it can be applied in this specific instance, we have two people with varying opinions on this case. the first, you, insists that this case is setting some sort of precedent. the second, the secret barrister, claims that it is not setting some sort of precedent. in common law legal systems, a precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case which is either binding on or persuasive for a court when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. on the one hand we have your claim, based on no obvious legal background, on the other hand we have someone who no one has denied is a legal professional who works in courts. if you want to contradict his view, you should do so with some evidence or argument about *why* he is wrong, not simply say 'he's wrong'. being as he has some experience of working in the legal system, it's not a great leap to say that his view is far more likely to be worth listening to on this point than yours. so unless you're going to say 'but this bit in the appeal court judgement sets a nasty precedent because...' perhaps you should shut up on this point. 





> Still doesn't speak to what I was saying tho, does it? The point - the entire point - is around her sexual history, and it's inclusion in this case. Whether an event took place before or after her abuse by evans makes absolutely no difference. It should not have been allowed, and the fact that it was allowed creates a new boundary for how such evidence can be used.  That is precedent setting.


there are, as has been widely reported, some exceptions to the general prohibition on the use of a complainant's sexual history. i would be grateful if, if you believe what you're saying, you could say why you feel this is a precedent, as opposed to the law taking its course. in what way did this allow a new interpretation of the relevant statute?


----------



## Reiabuzz (Oct 15, 2016)

Er, it's a simple question


----------



## RubyBlue (Oct 15, 2016)

There never has been any doubt about her - she's never lied, she simply doesn't remember. As far as I remember she didn't want this to go to trial and I don't think it should have. I feel desperately sorry for her but think she was probably operating in a blackout, as I have done before.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> You seem to want a return to the seventies, when a victims sexual history was fair game. Uggh.


could you show me where i have said or suggested that?

seems to me that you like chucking round unfounded allegations because you don't like other people getting the better of you in an argument. but you should be used to it by now.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 15, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Bit late to this. So he's been acquitted and the woman never actually accused him of rape. Who did then? How can someone be tried if there's no accusation from the victim?


It was the Crown (CPS) that took the case.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

1%er said:


> It was the Crown (CPS) that took the case.


not to mention that there are crimes for which a complaint's not needed for the police and cps to proceed, e.g. domestic violence (in at least england and wales)


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Er, it's a simple question


Yep. I can't figure that out either. It was the CPS's case against him, acting on her behalf.
All I have is this:
'_As the Court of Appeal made clear in its judgment allowing the appeal, *X has never asserted that she was raped*. She has always simply maintained that she had no memory of what happened. *It was the prosecution case – the case theory of the Crown Prosecution Service – that she was raped*. *The defence case was based not on the “usual” he said/ she said dispute over consent, but rather he said/ she can’t remember. *There is absolutely no safe basis for suggesting she has lied."_


----------



## Reiabuzz (Oct 15, 2016)

Bonkers


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

RubyBlue said:


> There never has been any doubt about her - she's never lied, she simply doesn't remember. As far as I remember she didn't want this to go to trial and I don't think it should have. I feel desperately sorry for her but think she was probably operating in a blackout, as I have done before.


It's an awful situation, but the position of many on this thread is that they wanted him convicted of rape, even though he might not be guilty of rape. It's an emotive subject but that's an extremely unsound attitude.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> Yep. I can't figure that out either. It was the CPS's case against him, acting on her behalf.
> All I have is this:
> '_As the Court of Appeal made clear in its judgment allowing the appeal, X has never asserted that she was raped. She has always simply maintained that she had no memory of what happened. *It was the prosecution case – the case theory of the Crown Prosecution Service – that she was raped*. *The defence case was based not on the “usual” he said/ she said dispute over consent, but rather he said/ she can’t remember. *There is absolutely no safe basis for suggesting she has lied."_


i think what happened was that as the police investigated her complaint regarding (iirc) her handbag, other things came out which made them take the course of action which led evans to face trial in the first place.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> It's an awful situation, but the position of many on this thread is that they wanted him convicted of rape, even though he might not be guilty of rape. It's an emotive subject but that's an extremely unsound attitude.


tbh he does seem to remain convicted in the court of public opinion


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh he does seem to remain convicted in the court of public opinion


Well there's this assumption (on here) that you're either on his side or hers. 

That's bollocks.

You can absolutely deplore the bloke's behaviour and sympathise with her, whilst understanding that it might not have been rape.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Oct 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> Yep. I can't figure that out either. It was the CPS's case against him, acting on her behalf.
> All I have is this:
> '_As the Court of Appeal made clear in its judgment allowing the appeal, *X has never asserted that she was raped*. She has always simply maintained that she had no memory of what happened. *It was the prosecution case – the case theory of the Crown Prosecution Service – that she was raped*. *The defence case was based not on the “usual” he said/ she said dispute over consent, but rather he said/ she can’t remember. *There is absolutely no safe basis for suggesting she has lied."_



When you say 'acting on her behalf', surely that would require her to allege she was actually raped in order for him to be banged up for two years? Whole case seems very very dodgy.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> that doesn't follow, not least as opinion varies greatly on what 'the right order' is. not to mention that so much of what happens now in a library has fuck all to do with books and more to do with helping people understand how to judge sources.


I do know that, and was being rude about the fine occupation of librarianship. For that, I apologise.



> to turn from the vagaries of information literacy as it is practiced in a library to how it can be applied in this specific instance, we have two people with varying opinions on this case. the first, you, insists that this case is setting some sort of precedent. the second, the secret barrister, claims that it is not setting some sort of precedent. in common law legal systems, a precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case which is either binding on or persuasive for a court when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. on the one hand we have your claim, based on no obvious legal background, on the other hand we have someone who no one has denied is a legal professional who works in courts. if you want to contradict his view, you should do so with some evidence or argument about *why* he is wrong, not simply say 'he's wrong'. being as he has some experience of working in the legal system, it's not a great leap to say that his view is far more likely to be worth listening to on this point than yours. so unless you're going to say 'but this bit in the appeal court judgement sets a nasty precedent because...' perhaps you should shut up on this point. there are, as has been widely reported, some exceptions to the general prohibition on the use of a complainant's sexual history. i would be grateful if, if you believe what you're saying, you could say why you feel this is a precedent, as opposed to the law taking its course. in what way did this allow a new interpretation of the relevant statute?


This is just nonsense tho. I am at a loss as to why you take everything this single barrister says as absolutely definitive truth. There are other legal opinions out there, some are even mentioned in the piece linked to.  They say why they think this is creating precedence. And that is (as I said earlier) because this is setting out a baseline for what may or may not be allowed within those 'exceptions to the general prohibition on the use of a complainant's sexual history'


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> could you show me where i have said or suggested that?
> 
> seems to me that you like chucking round unfounded allegations because you don't like other people getting the better of you in an argument. but you should be used to it by now.


I was quoting Spymaster, not you. I made no such remarks to you, for the simple reason that you never said anything to give me such an impression.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 15, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> When you say 'acting on her behalf', surely that would require her to allege she was actually raped in order for him to be banged up for two years? Whole case seems very very dodgy.


No at all. Just think about it for a minute or two.
Under English law I believe it is the CPS who decide, if and with what, a person is charged not the police (their job is to gather evidence) nor the victim.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> This is just nonsense tho. I am at a loss as to why you take everything this single barrister says as absolutely definitive truth. There are other legal opinions out there, some are even mentioned in the piece linked to.  They say why they think this is creating precedence. And that is (as I said earlier) because this is setting out a baseline for what may or may not be allowed within those 'exceptions to the general prohibition on the use of a complainant's sexual history'



Are you of the opinion that a complainants sexual history shouldn't be admitted _in any case whatsoever_, even if it could cast credible doubt on the defendants guilt?


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> When you say 'acting on her behalf', surely that would require her to allege she was actually raped in order for him to be banged up for two years? Whole case seems very very dodgy.


Yeah, 'acting on behalf of' might be wrong. I haven't got a clue really.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> I was quoting Spymaster, not you. I made no such remarks to you, for the simple reason that you never said anything to give me such an impression.


yeh, my mistake - sometimes the cut and thrust etc


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Are you of the opinion that a complainants sexual history shouldn't be admitted _in any case whatsoever_, even if it could cast credible doubt on the defendants guilt?


I would be slightly hesitant to say absolutely _never_, but I certainly think that belatedly repeating widely reported claims is a dodgy as fuck reason to do so.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Tbh this is all well explained by bimble's link I have referred to before. The Secret Barrister explains the exceptional circumstances which led to the appeal court deciding the new evidence needed to be tested before a jury.


Actually, according to analysis of Section 41 being invoked commissioned by the Home Office (admittedly in 2006), it was invoked in 1/3 of cases examined and, where it was granted, nearly always led to an acquittal. This paper recommends further training, particularly in the Court of Appeal, but I can find no reports of that having been carried out nor if the stats have changed.



> Victims said that they weighed up the issue of whether sexual history evidence would be raised in court in
> deciding whether to report the matter to the police and subsequently in deciding whether to withdraw the
> allegation.
> ...
> ...



In this cases, Section 41 was lifted because of new evidence. There is a big issue in that the new evidence was provided by two witnesses who had been interviewed before the first trial and had made no mention of what X said during their sexual encounter. What Evans alleges she said was widely reported, as was the £50k reward. Subsequently (and several years after the events), both witnesses suddenly remembered dialogue that they'd previously forgotten.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> This is just nonsense tho. I am at a loss as to why you take everything this single barrister says as absolutely definitive truth. There are other legal opinions out there, some are even mentioned in the piece linked to.  They say why they think this is creating precedence. And that is (as I said earlier) because this is setting out a baseline for what may or may not be allowed within those 'exceptions to the general prohibition on the use of a complainant's sexual history'


sorry, which piece linked to?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> In this cases, Section 41 was lifted because of new evidence. There is a big issue in that the new evidence was provided by two witnesses who had been interviewed before the first trial and had made no mention of what X said during their sexual encounter. What Evans alleges she said was widely reported, as was the £50k reward. Subsequently (and several years after the events), both witnesses suddenly remembered dialogue that they'd previously forgotten.


yes, i don't think i've said anything approaching 'two good, honest and decent men came forwards of their own free will and without the expectation of financial gain'


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> sorry, which piece linked to?


The Secret Barrister one. Also, there are the widely reported remarks by Vera Baird QC who says that that 'evidence' should never have been allowed in court.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> sorry, which piece linked to?


The Secret Barrister blog.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> The Secret Barrister one. Also, there are the widely reported remarks by Vera Baird QC who says that that 'evidence' should never have been allowed in court.


cheers

pity baird didn't pipe up when the ccrc referred the matter to the appeal court


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> There is a big issue in that the new evidence was provided by two witnesses who had been interviewed before the first trial and had made no mention of what X said during their sexual encounter.


_This_ is the dodgy bit if it's true.

What did they say in court when the prosecutor asked them "why didn't you mention this when the police first interviewed you?" ?


----------



## 1%er (Oct 15, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> When you say 'acting on her behalf', surely that would require her to allege she was actually raped in order for him to be banged up for two years? Whole case seems very very dodgy.





bimble said:


> Yeah, 'acting on behalf of' might be wrong. I haven't got a clue really.


The answer is in the first paragraph on the link you posted in post 2949 "[They] were charged with rape on the basis X was incapable of consenting to intercourse" in the view of the CPS

Link here


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> cheers
> 
> pity baird didn't pipe up when the ccrc referred the matter to the appeal court


No one actually knew what the 'new' evidence was then tho, did they?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 15, 2016)

Case should never have come to court, and everybody loses as a result of it being brought. Absolutely everybody. From her original statements, the woman herself didn't understand the nature of alcoholic blackouts (this was her first one, it seems), and it appears the police and those deciding to prosecute didn't understand them either. I've experienced them more times than I'd care to admit, so the idea that you can lose hours of your life in which you find out later that you did all kinds of things is very normal to me. And reading of her night, it had all the hallmarks of a blackout. Talking to others outside of here and also reading posts on here, people who've never experienced one seem not quite to understand what it is. A fuck-up from start to end.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, i don't think i've said anything approaching 'two good, honest and decent men came forwards of their own free will and without the expectation of financial gain'


I know you didn't. You did however say there were exceptional circumstances. They aren't.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> _This_ is the dodgy bit if it's true.
> 
> What did they say in court when the prosecutor asked them "why didn't you mention this when the police first interviewed you?" ?


'I was too embarassed'  

Funny how 50k helps overcome embarassment


----------



## trashpony (Oct 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Case should never have come to court, and everybody loses as a result of it being brought. Absolutely everybody. From her original statements, the woman herself didn't understand the nature of alcoholic blackouts (this was her first one, it seems), and it appears the police and those deciding to prosecute didn't understand them either. I've experienced them more times than I'd care to admit, so the idea that you can lose hours of your life in which you find out later that you did all kinds of things is very normal to me. And reading of her night, it had all the hallmarks of a blackout. Talking to others outside of here and also reading posts on here, people who've never experienced one seem not quite to understand what it is. A fuck-up from start to end.


Rape apologist.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

1%er said:


> The answer is in the first paragraph on the link you posted in post 2949 "[They] were charged with rape on the basis X was incapable of consenting to intercourse" in the view of the CPS


Yes. The whole case as presented to the jury was about whether drunken consent is still consent then. As the CPS's statement makes clear:
Ched Evans retrial


*Ed Beltrami, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS Wales said:*

“We respect the decision of the jury today. *This case hinged on the issue of sexual consent – that someone consents if they agree by choice and have the freedom and capacity to make that choice.* Being drunk does not mean a person relinquishes their right to consent, that they are to blame for being attacked or that they were ‘fair game’.

*“The prosecution argued that the complainant did not have the capacity to consent, but the jury found they could not be sure, beyond reasonable doubt, that the complainant did not consent, or that Evans thought she was not consenting.*

“I would like to thank the complainant for her courage throughout this case, and the previous trial.”


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> This is just nonsense tho. I am at a loss as to why you take everything this single barrister says as absolutely definitive truth. There are other legal opinions out there, some are even mentioned in the piece linked to.  They say why they think this is creating precedence. And that is (as I said earlier) because this is setting out a baseline for what may or may not be allowed within those 'exceptions to the general prohibition on the use of a complainant's sexual history'


if you're talking about the ones mentioned in the independent article linked to in this paragraph

i'm not sure women again against rape or end violence against women were expressing legal opinions or not.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Rape apologist.


Totally out of order.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> I know you didn't. You did however say there were exceptional circumstances. They aren't.


yeh. well, to my mind something referred to the court of appeal by the ccrc is not an everyday occurrence, and there are apparently stringent rules to prevent the introduction of the complainant's sexual history in court so when aspects of it are introduced in court in this case - and indeed the rarity widely commented on - it does seem to me exceptional.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Rape apologist.


i'm by no means a fan of littlebabyjesus, who i believe a vapid, banal liberal with the political nous of a lobotomised lobster: but it's a bit harsh to call lbj a rape apologist


----------



## Gromit (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Totally out of order.


Pretty standard accusation on Urban. Thrown about as easy as a frisbee.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Pretty standard accusation on Urban. Thrown about as easy as a frisbee.


oh fuck off


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> 'I was too embarassed'
> 
> Funny how 50k helps overcome embarassment


The implication being that the witnesses perjured themselves for £50k which they haven't yet been given.


----------



## Looby (Oct 15, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Pretty standard accusation on Urban. Thrown about as easy as a frisbee.


Shut up.


----------



## killer b (Oct 15, 2016)

Gromit said:


> Pretty standard accusation on Urban. Thrown about as easy as a frisbee.


it isn't - it just feels that way to you is all, cause it's usually you being called it.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The implication being that the witnesses perjured themselves for £50k which they haven't yet been given.



You say that as if you think it's implausible.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 15, 2016)

Whatever other arguments people are having. Can we at least all agree that this thread would be better off without Gromit?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The implication being that the witnesses perjured themselves for £50k which they haven't yet been given.


yeh but they must all have been in it pa, the ccrc, the court of appeal, the trial judge, the witnesses, the jury. amazing how far £50k will go these days.


----------



## Looby (Oct 15, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Whatever other arguments people are having. Can we at least all agree that this thread would be better off without Gromit?


Always!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Whatever other arguments people are having. Can we at least all agree that this thread would be better off without Gromit?


the one thing that unites us all


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

Raheem said:


> You say that as if you think it's implausible.


It's plausible but it's also _extremely _fucking dangerous given that they will go to prison if it's ever found out that they lied, and that's a strong possibility if they did.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Oct 15, 2016)

1%er said:


> No at all. Just think about it for a minute or two.
> Under English law I believe it is the CPS who decide, if and with what, a person is charged not the police (their job is to gather evidence) nor the victim.


Yes its always CPS who makes the decision to proceed with a case, and CPS that brings the case.  The victim is just a witness for the prosecution, CPS does not act on their behalf.  This is the same for all types of crime.  That's part of the reason why measures that protect victims such as anonymity and prohibiting details about their sex life being brought up in court are so important - sexual assault and rape cases involve far more scrutiny of the victim than most other types of criminal case, yet victims do not have a lawyer specifically representing their interests in court.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> It's plausible but it's also _extremely _fucking dangerous given that they will go to prison if it's ever found out that they lied, and that's a strong possibility if they did.



How would they ever be found out? 

The implication would seem to be that the courts should never take into account the possibility that a witness might lie, even if it knows they have been offered money, simply because no-one would ever be so stupid as to break the law.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> It's plausible but it's also _extremely _fucking dangerous given that they will go to prison if it's ever found out that they lied, and that's a strong possibility if they did.


But who's going to prosecute them? How are they ever going to be find out? She's already told them she remembers nothing of the nights in question. It's their word against hers, just as it's Evans against hers. 

Men lie in rape trials ALL THE TIME. That's why the conviction rate is so low.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 15, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Er, it's a simple question


you could try and read up on it


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> But who's going to prosecute them? How are they ever going to be find out? She's already told them she remembers nothing of the nights in question. It's their word against hers, just as it's Evans against hers.



It's their words against her 'I don't remember', not their words against hers, in this unusual case. Nobody (apart from total idiots) has said that she has lied about anything.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Oct 15, 2016)

I have. It's still difficult to see how it made it to trial let alone the guy being banged up for 18 months.

Edit, at orangutan


----------



## Reiabuzz (Oct 15, 2016)

He's a fuckwit. Yes. But this is a bizarre case.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> It's their words against her 'I don't remember', not their words against hers, in this unusual case.


Sorry - wrong turn of phrase.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 15, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> I have. It's still difficult to see how it made it to trial let alone the guy being banged up for 18 months.
> 
> Edit, at orangutan


no it isn't


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

If he _had _been found guilty of rape on the basis of her not remembering anything of that night that would have set a seriously big precedent, wouldn't it.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> But who's going to prosecute them? How are they ever going to be find out? She's already told them she remembers nothing of the nights in question. It's their word against hers, just as it's Evans against hers.


Well that's the risk that you presume they've taken. It's possible that they have, but also possible that they are telling the truth.  

If they're telling the truth there's a fair chance that the same happened with Evans. If that's the case he didn't rape her.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 15, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> I have. It's still difficult to see how it made it to trial let alone the guy being banged up for 18 months.
> 
> Edit, at orangutan


I've been on the jury for a rape trial. In the end me and 1 other stuck with guilty against 10 not guilty. But it really isn't easy to make a decision, it was fucking horrible in fact. To get a guilty verdict the evidence and argument must have been pretty compelling.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well that's the risk that you presume they've taken. It's possible that they have, but also possible that they are telling the truth.
> 
> If they're telling the truth there's a fair chance that the same happened with Evans. If that's the case he didn't rape her.


Why is her saying that to one man who she chose to go home with the same as her saying it to another man who she may not have even known was in the room?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Why is her saying that to one man who she chose to go home with the same as her saying it to another man who she may not have even known was in the room?


It's not.

But her replying "yes" when asked by one chap if the other could join in, isn't that.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm not sure women again against rape or end violence against women were expressing legal opinions or not.


I'd be pretty sure they would seek legal opinion before issuing any statements regarding the law.  They're not just talking on an internet message board


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Rape apologist.



Fucking stupid and offensive thing to say.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2016)

We seem to be going backwards really fast. How the fuck can this be happening in 2016 and with the legal aid cuts is only gonna get worse. Justice is for the rich now.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2016)

This guy is guilty as fuck and the 50,000 reward thing should be contempt of court surely.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> I'd be pretty sure they would seek legal opinion before issuing any statements regarding the law.  They're not just talking on an internet message board


But beyond reasonable doubt? I'm not so sure.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 15, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> This guy is guilty as fuck and the 50,000 reward thing should be contempt of court surely.



Are you privy to information not put before the jury?


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Oct 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> If he had been found guilty on the basis that her not remembering anything of that night means that he could not possibly have reasonably believed her to have consented to sex, that would have set a seriously big precedent, wouldn't it.


If the prosecution did suggest this to the jury, the judge would instruct them that they could not convict the defendant on this basis. A reasonable belief in consent cannot be invalidated by something that was unknowable at the time of the sexual activity.



belboid said:


> I'd be pretty sure they would seek legal opinion before issuing any statements regarding the law.  They're not just talking on an internet message board


Women Against Rape are Assange apologists, so I wouldn't assume that their statements are sanity checked by anyone.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 15, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Fucking stupid and offensive thing to say.


You're one too, given you said the same thing but in fewer words.
Urban Dictionary: Rape apologist

Evans was convicted, despite the complainant not making ANY COMPLAINT against him but on the strength of his and McDonald's own evidence to the court and jury.
He appealed and was turned down.
Existing witnesses suddenly remembered new evidence and it was allowed, overturning the conviction.

Money gets men off rape charges. This was a safe conviction but his money has bought his freedom.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Are you privy to information not put before the jury?


quite possibly, Evans' girlfriends pressuring of witnesses and repeated offers of the money wasn't put to the jury - Victims' groups cry foul as footballer Ched Evans is cleared of raping a teenager after complainant's sexual history is put before court (see 3pm in particular)


----------



## 1%er (Oct 15, 2016)

Having now read the transcript of "appeal against conviction" (and I recommend others read it)  it contains some "interesting evidence" and also the reasons behind why section 41 was allowed in this case.

I make no judgement against X but I do wonder why the CPS put into evidence some of the things they did, which allowed "previous sexual history" to be introduced in this case.


----------



## gosub (Oct 15, 2016)

10 myths busted about the Ched Evans case


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

MAD-T-REX said:


> Women Against Rape are Assange apologists, so I wouldn't assume that their statements are sanity checked by anyone.


End Violence Against Women aren't tho, they're a very sensible and wide ranging group of campaigners


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2016)

So two people just happen to remember some detail several years after the event and its a pure coincidence that there was a £50k reward. 

Bullshit. He is guilty.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

MAD-T-REX said:


> If the prosecution did suggest this to the jury, the judge would instruct them that they could not convict the defendant on this basis. A reasonable belief in consent cannot be invalidated by something that was unknowable at the time of the sexual activity.


But isn't that exactly what the prosecution case was? (that her not having any memory of the night means the sex was nonconsensual? )


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> So two people just happen to remember some detail several years after the event and its a pure coincidence that there was a £50k reward.
> 
> Bullshit. He is guilty.


It's not that simple. 

The jury couldn't agree that _beyond reasonable doubt._


----------



## 1%er (Oct 15, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> So two people just happen to remember some detail several years after the event and its a pure coincidence that there was a £50k reward.


Do you think that is why he was found not guilty?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2016)

I remember a phrase from the first trial, Evans friend ringing him from a taxi saying 'I've got a girl'. Evans then arrived at the hotel 15 minutes later - he stopped whatever he was doing and dived in a cab. Whilst rape clearly doesn't have to follow from that exchange, it's a clear statement to me of exactly what that night was about. Even in Evans own account, there was no discussion at that point (phone call in the taxi) with the victim about whether he could 'join in'. Who the fuck would turn up at the hotel room of a couple having sex on the off chance the woman would then have sex with you?

I'm not even getting into the rest of it, him hiding his face, blagging a key, leaving through the firedoor, changed statements.  Just turning up on the assumption he was going to get sex from someone he had never met... what, he just managed to find someone who was so pissed, but not comatose, that she 'consented'? Don't think so.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> You're one too, given you said the same thing but in fewer words.
> Urban Dictionary: Rape apologist
> 
> Evans was convicted, despite the complainant not making ANY COMPLAINT against him but on the strength of his and McDonald's own evidence to the court and jury.
> ...


Tbh being as one party to the case is anonymous it is not beyond the bounds of possibility they only realised their evidence might be germane later on. You're making it sound like everyone knew everything at the time, which isn't always how things happen.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> .


Cheers pa


----------



## likesfish (Oct 15, 2016)

He had enough money and enough time to chuck enough dirt to get off


----------



## Dowie (Oct 15, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I remember a phrase from the first trial, Evans friend ringing him from a taxi saying 'I've got a girl'. Evans then arrived at the hotel 15 minutes later - he stopped whatever he was doing and dived in a cab. Whilst rape clearly doesn't have to follow from that exchange, it's a clear statement to me of exactly what that night was about. Even in Evans own account, there was no discussion at that point (phone call in the taxi) with the victim about whether he could 'join in'. Who the fuck would turn up at the hotel room of a couple having sex on the off chance the woman would then have sex with you?



apparently the other two who tried to film through a window would turn up just to watch

the whole thing is very strange and very dodgy, then again maybe these footballers do develop some arrogant entitlement attitudes regarding women


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

I personally would not want to see a change in the way the law works making it so that basically "If a woman has no memory of the night before, then any sex that she had was beyond reasonable doubt nonconsensual sex and so the person who had sex with her is guilty of rape."
I think that would probably cause more problems than it would solve.
(This is not a comment on this particular case but on what might have been the result of a guilty verdict.)


----------



## trashpony (Oct 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Tbh being as one party to the case is anonymous it is not beyond the bounds of possibility they only realised their evidence might be germane later on. You're making it sound like everyone knew everything at the time, which isn't always how things happen.


I suggest you read the document that 1%er linked to. Both witnesses were contacted by the defence and 'remembered' details they thought weren't relevant previous.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 15, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Bit late to this. So he's been acquitted and the woman never actually accused him of rape. Who did then? How can someone be tried if there's no accusation from the victim?



It's quite common in murder cases.


----------



## hegley (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Both witnesses were contacted by the defence and 'remembered' details they thought weren't relevant previous.


Not to mention that a mate of Ched Evans, and then his sister, both acted as the go-between for one of the witnesses and solicitors because the witness "didn't have an email address". FFS.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> I suggest you read the document that 1%er linked to. Both witnesses were contacted by the defence and 'remembered' details they thought weren't relevant previous.


Pray make a complaint of perjury to the police


----------



## trashpony (Oct 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Pray make a complaint of perjury to the police


I don't know why you're defending this so hard unless it's for shits and giggles. I thought better of you tbh


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

The principle of_ innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt _is kind of important. It's a good one.
If he had been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the jury it would have been significant way beyond this particular case and this particular scumbag being locked up.


----------



## killer b (Oct 15, 2016)

he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, first time round.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, first time round.


For which he served his sentence. Doubts emerged since then.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> For which he served his sentence. Doubts emerged since then.


No. Money emerged since then.


----------



## killer b (Oct 15, 2016)

yeah. I'm not sure if it would have been any more significant 'way beyond this particular case' this time round though - he'd already been found guilty once, what would it have changed?


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, first time round.


That's true. It's a horrible case. The money offered for information does screw the whole thing up and changes the conversation rightly.


----------



## killer b (Oct 15, 2016)

this result is significant way beyond the case mind. rapists know it's open season on pissed girls they can paint as slags.


----------



## starfish (Oct 15, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I remember a phrase from the first trial, Evans friend ringing him from a taxi saying 'I've got a girl'. Evans then arrived at the hotel 15 minutes later - he stopped whatever he was doing and dived in a cab. Whilst rape clearly doesn't have to follow from that exchange, it's a clear statement to me of exactly what that night was about. Even in Evans own account, there was no discussion at that point (phone call in the taxi) with the victim about whether he could 'join in'. Who the fuck would turn up at the hotel room of a couple having sex on the off chance the woman would then have sex with you?
> 
> I'm not even getting into the rest of it, him hiding his face, blagging a key, leaving through the firedoor, changed statements.  Just turning up on the assumption he was going to get sex from someone he had never met... what, he just managed to find someone who was so pissed, but not comatose, that she 'consented'? Don't think so.


Me & ms starfish have just been going over that bit ourselves just now. It was a text "got a girl". Evans claimed he was on his way to the police station to report a "racially motivated attack" on one of his half brothers friends outside the same kebab shop MacDonald picked up the girl. So instead of going to the police Evans, his half brother & a friend went to the hotel, where Evans had already booked a room. It just sounds predatory. But to them its acceptable. Im sure theres been times when situations like this have passed off with no complaints from all parties but it just doesnt sit right.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 15, 2016)

D'wards said:


> I am i no way defending Evans or what the judge allowed in this trial, but i just read the book Helter Skelter by Vincent Bugliosi, who was Charles Manson's prosecutor. One thing i find interesting, is that he likes to interview witnesses many times. He contends that he has been given new vital information about a case on the 8th interview with a witness.



Frankly, that's merely an illustration of how memory works. It isn't, as people assume, a linear narrative imprinted on the brain via the senses, it's a confused mass of narratives from the senses that the brain tries to sort into a cohesive whole. Unfortunately the amount of data is such that the brain often edits out pieces of information that seem contrary to its own interpretation. Those pieces can be elicited though, if an interviewer takes it slow and uses "open" questions, rather than demanding specific individual facts.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> No. Money emerged since then.


The first witness contacted the police on the day of Evans' conviction. They directed him to the defence lawyers.

A statement was taken by the defence solicitors a month later in which he said that he'd slept with X and she'd asked the next morning if they had shagged.

This was before any reward was offered, and would have been available to the defence at the first appeal but wasn't used because it related to X's memory loss and at the time was considered irrelevant.


----------



## RubyBlue (Oct 15, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Case should never have come to court, and everybody loses as a result of it being brought. Absolutely everybody. From her original statements, the woman herself didn't understand the nature of alcoholic blackouts (this was her first one, it seems), and it appears the police and those deciding to prosecute didn't understand them either. I've experienced them more times than I'd care to admit, so the idea that you can lose hours of your life in which you find out later that you did all kinds of things is very normal to me. And reading of her night, it had all the hallmarks of a blackout. Talking to others outside of here and also reading posts on here, people who've never experienced one seem not quite to understand what it is. A fuck-up from start to end.



To me you've hit the nail on the head - like you I've had many a blackout and have done all kinds of shit with absolutely no memory.



trashpony said:


> Rape apologist.



Fuck that - absolutely no need - as well as wrong


----------



## trashpony (Oct 15, 2016)

Her blackout is neither here nor there. She doesn't remember. It was Evans' evidence that convicted him. 

So yes to keep banging on about that is making excuses for Evans.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

It's sad that 'liking' RubyBlue's post, this time and the previous one, feels a bit scary, like any minute someone's gonna call me a rape apologist too.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> It was Evans' evidence that convicted him.


Which part?


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Her blackout is neither here nor there. She doesn't remember. It was Evans' evidence that convicted him.
> 
> So yes to keep banging on about that is making excuses for Evans.


Don't think that's fair at all.

The whole case was tried as a case about consent & alcohol.

This is the CPS's statement from yesterday:


Ched Evans retrial


If you think the CPS, who brought the case, is wrong in their assessment of what it was all about then maybe you should try to explain why.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Which part?


All of it. Given she had never, and still hasn't, accused him of rape. The CPS made that decision.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 15, 2016)

I think what we SHOULD be focussing on here is whether Evans knew or cared if his victim was beyond consent or not, not whether the victim blacked out or not. It's clear from his and his fellow beast that neither did.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Which part?



His evidence seems to be that his friend persuaded a drunk woman into a hotel room. He then went into the room and fucked her without saying a word then left. It seems like he was specifically asked by the police if he had made any attempt to gain her consent and he said that he hadn't. 

I'm not saying that's open-and-shut, but it was enough for the first jury.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> I don't know why you're defending this so hard unless it's for shits and giggles. I thought better of you tbh


I'm not defending anything. I don't support Ched Evans. It's not like I've slagged off x. You want to make accusations of perjury, fine; but why not put your money where your mouth is?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> All of it. Given she had never, and still hasn't, accused him of rape. The CPS made that decision.


But which part of his evidence do you believe convicted him? 

He said that his mate asked if he could join in and she said "yes". He said that she had said "fuck me harder" during the act. That's not in dispute. 

So what bits of his evidence convicted him?


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I think what we SHOULD be focussing on here is whether Evans knew or cared if his victim was beyond consent or not, not whether the victim blacked out or not. It's clear from his and his fellow beast that neither did.


I agree that's where the interesting bit is. And that's what the case as presented to the jury was all about: 
What does 'beyond consent' mean?


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> He said that his mate asked if he could join in and she said "yes". He said that she had said "fuck me harder" during the act. That's not in dispute.


It might not be in dispute that he said it.  It has absolutely not been proven that she actually _did _say it tho.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Raheem said:


> His evidence seems to be that his friend persuaded a drunk woman into a hotel room. He then went into the room and fucked her without saying a word then left. It seems like he was specifically asked by the police if he had made any attempt to gain her consent and he said that he hadn't.
> 
> I'm not saying that's open-and-shut, but it was enough for the first jury.


It's the behaviour of a sexual predator.  Even if you accept he genuinely believed he had consent, it comes from an appalling attitude that doesn't really know or care what consent really means.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> I agree that's where the interesting bit is. And that's what the case as presented to the jury was all about:
> What does 'beyond consent' mean?


too drunk to consent. i doubt it even crossed their minds. they just didn't care.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I think what we SHOULD be focussing on here is whether Evans knew or cared if his victim was beyond consent or not, not whether the victim blacked out or not. It's clear from his and his fellow beast that neither did.


It's not clear is it though. The question is, did he believe she was consenting. If she said "yes" to his mate and asked him to fuck her harder, it's not unreasonable to believe that she was.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> Even if you accept he genuinely believed he had consent, it comes from an appalling attitude that doesn't really know or care what consent really means.


It does. But it also means that you accept that he's not guilty of rape.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> It's not clear is it though. The question is, did he believe she was consenting. If she said "yes" to his mate and asked him to fuck her harder, it's not unreasonable to believe that she was.


weren't the 'fuck me harder' statements about separate incidents that the witnesses who came forward described?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> It might not be in dispute that he said it.  It has absolutely not been proven that she actually _did _say it tho.


Or that she didn't. Reasonable doubt.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> too drunk to consent. i doubt it even crossed their minds. they just didn't care.


What does 'too drunk to consent' look like?
We all know that someone who is semi- conscious / unable to talk properly etc is too drunk to consent. If you have sex with someone in that state you are a rapist.
This case was built entirely on her not remembering anything in the morning.
That is all we know for sure.

The only two people to have come here to say that they have had blackouts like this have both been accused of being rape apologists.

That is shit.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> weren't the 'fuck me harder' statements about separate incidents that the witnesses who came forward described?


She's also said to have said the same thing to Evans, which is why it became relevant.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> She's also said to have said the same thing to Evans, which is why it became relevant.


by them


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> this result is significant way beyond the case mind. rapists know it's open season on pissed girls they can paint as slags.



I think you've got to be very careful indeed with this type of emotive language . That'll only serve in itself to dissuade victims from coming forward . There's been legal opinion posted here that it's not a return to the dark ages. Personally I don't know , I'm not a lawyer .


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Or that she didn't. Reasonable doubt.


So 'not in dispute' is not an accurate reflection of the actuality


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> by them


Yes.


----------



## killer b (Oct 15, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> I think you've got to be very careful indeed with this type of emotive language . That'll only serve in itself to dissuade victims from coming forward . There's been legal opinion posted here that it's not a return to the dark ages. Personally I don't know , I'm not a lawyer .


fuck off.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Yes.


I don't believe them for a second


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I don't believe them for a second


The jury couldn't say that,_ beyond reasonable doubt._


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well that's the risk that you presume they've taken. It's possible that they have, but also possible that they are telling the truth.
> 
> If they're telling the truth there's a fair chance that the same happened with Evans. If that's the case he didn't rape her.



Or more accurately a reasonable doubt can be inferred .


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 15, 2016)

killer b said:


> fuck off.



Illuminating .


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> It does. But it also means that you accept that he's not guilty of rape.


The phrase 'accept he genuinely believed' would imply that, yes.  Although isn't the test actually of whether a 'reasonable person' would entertain such a belief, rather than Evans himself.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> So 'not in dispute' is not an accurate reflection of the actuality


Yes it is. It was not disputed by anyone. 

Who could dispute it?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The jury couldn't say that,_ beyond reasonable doubt._


they did the first time.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Yes it is. It was not disputed by anyone.
> 
> Who could dispute it?


Jesus, really?  That is utterly illogical. It is one person's word, a person with a good reason to lie about it. I think we can be pretty certain the CPS lawyer disputed it, probably quite forcefully.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> they did the first time.


... having not heard the subsequent evidence.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> they did the first time.


Yes. Then they apparently believed the 'new evidence' which told them that she has several times had no memory of having had enthusiastic sex the night before.
Whether that new evidence was truthful or not is another thing.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> Jesus, really?  That is utterly illogical. It is one person's word, a person with a good reason to lie about it. I think we can be pretty certain the victims lawyer disputed it, probably quite forcefully.


The victim didn't have a lawyer. She was a witness for the prosecution.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> ... having not heard the subsequent evidence.


which is tainted as fuck and should have been thrown out imo.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> ... having not heard the subsequent evidence.


just like the recent jury didn't hear all the evidence about Evans' girlfriend trying to bribe witnesses


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> The victim didn't have a lawyer. She was a witness for the prosecution.


fair point.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

Orang Utan We know what definitely too drunk to consent looks like. What does drunken consent look like?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> I think we can be pretty certain the victims lawyer disputed it, probably quite forcefully.


Really?

On what basis? 

All X was able to tell anyone is that she had no memory of the event. 

The only witnesses declared that she was an enthusiastic participant. So how did they go about disputing what they said she said?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> which is tainted as fuck and should have been thrown out imo.


But clearly not in the jury's (beyond a reasonable doubt)..


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> Orang Utan We know what definitely too drunk to consent looks like. What does drunken consent look like?


i don't know.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Really?
> 
> On what basis?
> 
> ...


Are you really this thick?  They dispute it by saying 'I don't believe you.  You're a liar.'  That's why it was important to get someone else to claim that she said the same thing to them, to make it plausible.


----------



## hegley (Oct 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> We all know that someone who is semi- conscious / unable to talk properly etc is too drunk to consent. If you have sex with someone in that state you are a rapist.


The night porter described her as "extremely drunk". She's on CCTV staggering, and at one point falling over. An expert witness said she would have had enough alcohol in her system to be slurring her words and unsteady on her feet. McDonald, co-defendant in the original trial even told the night porter when he left to look out for her because she was sick. I don't think either McDonald or Evans particularly cared - it goes back to Evans saying that he could have had any girl he wanted that night because he was a rich footballer. Which has echoes of Trump saying when you're a star you can do anything to women.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> It's the behaviour of a sexual predator.  Even if you accept he genuinely believed he had consent, it comes from an appalling attitude that doesn't really know or care what consent really means.



There is absolutely no doubt this guy is a sexual predator, none at all. And no doubt he doesn't give a toss about consent either. He's clearly a menace and a scumbag . But at the same time there are others who do consent to participate in that type of sexual activity . Better judgement can go clean out the window with drink taken . That doesn't in turn mean I think he's innocent mind . I think he's scum .

But for me the biger issue is whether or not this signals a legal opening of the floodgates as regards women's sexual history ? Has it set an actual precedent that overturns existing legislation or were there just particular anomalies and loopholes in this case that made it a one off ? That's what I'd like to know but I'm not getting any clear answers in the midst of all this shouting .


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> Are you really this thick?  They dispute it by saying 'I don't believe you.  You're a liar.'  That's why it was important to get someone else to claim that she said the same thing to them, to make it plausible.


 You stupid, stupid, cunt.

On what basis could they reasonably say that? If it were their word against hers they could dispute it, but it wasn't even that. It's their word ONLY.

You might get something like: "I put it to you that she did not consent"

Reply: "She did".

The transcripts are out there, go and find it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 15, 2016)

Reiabuzz said:


> Er, it's a simple question



Police can bring charges regardless of whether a victim wishes them to, if they believe there's a case to be made.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

hegley said:


> The night porter described her as "extremely drunk". She's on CCTV staggering, and at one point falling over. An expert witness said she would have had enough alcohol in her system to be slurring her words and unsteady on her feet. McDonald, co-defendant in the original trial even told the night porter when he left to look out for her because she was sick. I don't think either McDonald or Evans particularly cared - it goes back to Evans saying that he could have had any girl he wanted that night because he was a rich footballer. Which has echoes of Trump saying when you're a star you can do anything to women.


Totally agree about the disgustingness of the footballer.
On a personal note, it happened once that I was really quite drunk and my very nice boyfriend person refused to have sex with me because of that, even though I tried it on.
But I don't feel comfortable with the law arbitrating that, had we had sex that night, it would have been nonconsensual.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> The only two people to have come here to say that they have had blackouts like this have both been accused of being rape apologists.
> 
> That is shit.



That was pretty disgraceful . Out of order .


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You stupid, stupid, cunt.
> 
> On what basis could they reasonably say that? If it were their word against hers they could dispute it, but it wasn't even that. It's their word ONLY.
> 
> ...


Utter nonsense. Going 'I put it to you she did not say that' is disputing it. Arguing she was too inebriated to say it (or anything else) is disputing it.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> What does 'too drunk to consent' look like?
> We all know that someone who is semi- conscious / unable to talk properly etc is too drunk to consent. If you have sex with someone in that state you are a rapist.
> This case was built entirely on her not remembering anything in the morning.
> That is all we know for sure.
> ...


I am too busy right now looking after children to answer you properly but that is a complete lie


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> I am too busy right now looking after children to answer you properly but that is a complete lie



I understand you're busy but allow me to defend myself against the accusation of having posted 'a complete lie'.
The two people who have come here and said they have experienced blackouts are LBJ and Ruby Blue.

You know that you directly called LJB a rape apologist.
To RubyBlue you said "Her blackout is neither here nor there. She doesn't remember. It was Evans' evidence that convicted him. _So yes to keep banging on about that is making excuses for Evans."
_
I'm not expecting a response or anything, but its sad that both people who posted with direct experience of memory loss due to alcohol have been accused of being apologists for Evans, who you are certain is a rapist.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 15, 2016)

I didn't call ruby blue a rape apologist. 

I said that LBJ and EoY are because they said they didn't think he should have been charged at all.

ETA and it's not just me who's certain. The first jury. The appeal court and the second appeal court all agreed.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

You said RubyBlue 's personal testimony was helping to 'make excuses for Evans'. That's how I read your post anyway.
But never mind. I've got to disentangle from the computer too.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 15, 2016)

Was cctv ever looked into in terms of where they were before going to the hotel? Spiking someone's drink can also cause blackouts, certain date rape substances are known for it in fact... 

The I've got a girl' phone call is sinister as fuck Imo... They were certainly up to no good from that moment on.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> She's also said to have said the same thing to Evans, which is why it became relevant.


Convenient that, don't you think?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> The first jury. The appeal court and the second appeal court all agreed.


Eh?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Convenient that, don't you think?


Well yes. But also plausible.

Have you read this:https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2016/chedevansappealx.pdf


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> I understand you're busy but allow me to defend myself against the accusation of having posted 'a complete lie'.
> The two people who have come here and said they have experienced blackouts are LBJ and Ruby Blue.


that's not true. others have. this is a long thread.
i have definitely had blackouts before myself.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 15, 2016)

I have had blackouts and I would hate to think I was acting so crazily that people would think I would be able to get taken advantage of in that state.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well yes. But also plausible.
> 
> Have you read this:https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2016/chedevansappealx.pdf



Thanks for posting that. I'm far from convinced Evans is actually innocent of rape, but I can now see that actual points of law where he got his conviction quashed . Xs ..or more correctly the CPSs case seems to have been badly damaged by Xs assertion she would never consent to sex with a stranger . Which is an understandable thing for anyone to say in the belief theyd be judged negatively but might not have been completely accurate . I can see how that contradiction , which was central to Evans conviction..was relevant in a court . There's the reasonable doubt introduced .

I'm still pretty fuzzy though on the courts assertion this is a rare instance that doesn't undermine section 41 . It says it doesn't but doesnt really explain why, I'm not really convinced . Seems more hopeful than anything .

Eta

Also the failure of the witnesses to mention specific details previously seems to be that they simply weren't asked . Or so they claim . 

The whole things dodgy as fuck tbh. Anyway you look at it Evans reasons for going there were just appalling and wholly predatory .


----------



## RubyBlue (Oct 15, 2016)

frogwoman said:


> I have had blackouts and I would hate to think I was acting so crazily that people would think I would be able to get taken advantage of in that state.



That's the thing though, the chances are no one would realise - you would (or I would) come across as being happily a bit drunk but no one would think I was so twatted I might get taken advantage of - that's the difference between being pissed and being Ina blackout -  if you met me in one you wouldn't think I was that drunk!

I met a guy once in AA who a shagged in a blackout (prior to going to AA). I had no idea I'd shagged him - he asked if I still lived in that flat in Dalston - I thought how the fuck do you know where I live - it all became embarrassingly clear!


----------



## trashpony (Oct 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> You said RubyBlue 's personal testimony was helping to 'make excuses for Evans'. That's how I read your post anyway.





bimble said:


> To RubyBlue you said "Her blackout is neither here nor there. She doesn't remember. It was Evans' evidence that convicted him. _So yes to keep banging on about that is making excuses for Evans."_



No, what I meant was that RubyBlue's testimony was irrelevant inasmuch as her not remembering anything has never been in doubt. I think that's a given. So much of this is diversion - it's like a sleight of hand magician. 
It was Evans and McDonald's testimony that meant he was convicted. She could have been lucid except that witnesses and the CCTV says she appeared to be very very drunk. All except for the defendant and his mate.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 15, 2016)

RubyBlue said:


> That's the thing though, the chances are no one would realise - you would (or I would) come across as being happily a bit drunk but no one would think I was so twatted I might get taken advantage of - that's the difference between being pissed and being Ina blackout -  if you met me in one you wouldn't think I was that drunk!
> 
> I met a guy once in AA who a shagged in a blackout (prior to going to AA). I had no idea I'd shagged him - he asked if I still lived in that flat in Dalston - I thought how the fuck do you know where I live - it all became embarrassingly clear!



That's alcoholism in a nutshell . Memory loss and face palms all round . You certainly don't need to be outwardly completely out of it to not be able to remember stuff . At the same time you can actually get wrote off and remember doing it . 

Being called all sorts for pointing this out is completely uncalled for .


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Thanks for posting that. I'm far from convinced Evans is actually innocent of rape, but I can now see that actual points of law where he got his conviction quashed .


Quite. And then subsequently acquitted in the retrial.

He may well be guilty of rape. He's certainly guilty of being a thoroughgoing scumbag. But as the law stands, you can see that his guilt is not now beyond a reasonable doubt.

ETA> None of which is a reflection on X. The poor woman has been royally fucked by the CPS.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> ETA> None of which is a reflection on X. The poor woman has been royally fucked by the CPS.


How? By them prosecuting Evans? What else have they done to her?


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Quite. And then subsequently acquitted.
> 
> He may well be guilty of rape. He's certainly guilty of being a thoroughgoing scumbag. But as the law stands, you can see that his guilt is not now beyond a reasonable doubt.



Yup. And there's certainly also a number of question marks as to how that introduction of reasonable doubt came about . Quite a whiff , but also a whiff of plausibility too. Can definitely see why people are upset . But if the new witnesses were telling the truth ..that makes a big difference. in law at least .

He's still a predatory , pervert scumbag though . At least that was established beyond any reasonable doubt .


----------



## trashpony (Oct 15, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Being called all sorts for pointing this out is completely uncalled for .


No one has called Ruby Blue anything for pointing that out. Bimble misunderstood what I was saying


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> If he _had _been found guilty of rape on the basis of her not remembering anything of that night that would have set a seriously big precedent, wouldn't it.


Apart from that was never the basis of the CPSs case, the CPSs claim (IMO completely valid) is that the woman was not in a state to give consent.



bimble said:


> I personally would not want to see a change in the way the law works making it so that basically "If a woman has no memory of the night before, then any sex that she had was beyond reasonable doubt nonconsensual sex and so the person who had sex with her is guilty of rape."
> I think that would probably cause more problems than it would solve.
> (This is not a comment on this particular case but on what might have been the result of a guilty verdict.)


Again this is bollocks you've completely made up.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> No one has called Ruby Blue anything for pointing that out. Bimble misunderstood what I was saying



Fair enough . Apologies on that score .


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Can definitely see why people are upset .


Sure. But the alternative is to reduce the standard of proof to something less than _beyond a reasonable doubt, _and that opens a fucking massive can of worms.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2016)

hegley said:


> The night porter described her as "extremely drunk". She's on CCTV staggering, and at one point falling over. An expert witness said she would have had enough alcohol in her system to be slurring her words and unsteady on her feet. McDonald, co-defendant in the original trial even told the night porter when he left to look out for her because she was sick. I don't think either McDonald or Evans particularly cared - it goes back to Evans saying that he could have had any girl he wanted that night because he was a rich footballer. Which has echoes of Trump saying when you're a star you can do anything to women.


At one level we are discussing the case in terms of legality and the issue of being too drunk to give consent. Fair enough, that discussion is proper, for us and for the court (even if I think the 'new evidence' shouldn't have been admitted - by a country mile).  I happen to think he's got off with it because of his and father in law's wealth.

But there's absolutely another level to think about the case, just about the behaviour one human being (and his supporting cast of friends/entourage) towards another.  Every bit of the case, every fucking detail of Evans behaviour and that of his cronies screams that it was an exploitative use of power - to manipulate a situation in order to get sex.  Every detail from the text through to him avoiding the cameras and creeping out through the fire door.  All _agreed_ details afaik.  That's rape for me, fwiw, but even if it doesn't meet that legal test - and again I think it does because I don't believe a fucking word he said - it's something just as bad.  And without getting into the 'some' vs 'all' men thing again, it really signifies a society that is truly fucked up in its attitudes towards women.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> ... the CPSs claim (IMO completely valid) is that the woman was not in a state to give consent.


Which was inherently dodgy, given that SHE WASN'T initially accusing them of rape and had no recollection of the events.

The jury did not have to decide on whether she knowingly gave consent. Their decision was based on whether or not _Evans could reasonably have believed_ she was consenting.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Sure. But the alternative is to reduce the standard of proof to something less than _beyond a reasonable doubt, _and that opens a fucking massive can of worms.



Big time .


----------



## Athos (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> No, what I meant was that RubyBlue's testimony was irrelevant inasmuch as her not remembering anything has never been in doubt. I think that's a given. So much of this is diversion - it's like a sleight of hand magician.
> It was Evans and McDonald's testimony that meant he was convicted. She could have been lucid except that witnesses and the CCTV says she appeared to be very very drunk. All except for the defendant and his mate.


Indeed Mcdonald thought her so drunk that he felt the need to warn the night porter just minutes after they'd both had sex with her.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Which was inherently dodgy, given that SHE WASN'T initially accusing them of rape and had no recollection of the events.


So fucking what? That makes no difference at all. 

You think they were wrong to prosecute, don't you?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Was cctv ever looked into in terms of where they were before going to the hotel? Spiking someone's drink can also cause blackouts, certain date rape substances are known for it in fact...
> 
> The I've got a girl' phone call is sinister as fuck Imo... They were certainly up to no good from that moment on.


It struck me as pretty grim and also suggested this was a routine, something they'd done before.  Otherwise, why the actual fuck would someone divert from where they were going and go to where two people were having sex? Something along the lines of 'I've met a girl and she's up for a threesome' perhaps, but not that.  All adds to a sequence of events where it just screams out to me that Evans didn't give a flying fuck whether she was even conscious.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Oct 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> *Ed Beltrami, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS Wales said:*



Huh, Joe's boy Edwin landed on his feet, I see.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Sure. But the alternative is to reduce the standard of proof to something less than _beyond a reasonable doubt, _and that opens a fucking massive can of worms.


Sounds like you're confusing reasonable doubt with absolute certainty too.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Which was inherently dodgy, given that SHE WASN'T accusing them of rape and had no recollection of the events.
> 
> The jury did not have to decide on whether she knowingly gave consent. Their decision was based on whether or not _Evans could reasonably have believed_ she was consenting.



Yup . And she was in bed when he met her . Wasn't walking /staggering about . No conversation between them . Not much grounds on which to question his apparent belief . I'd have thought there were more grounds to convict his scummy mate who had seen that and indicated he was aware she was very drunk .


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 15, 2016)

Wilf said:


> It struck me as pretty grim and also suggested this was a routine, something they'd done before.  Otherwise, why the actual fuck would someone divert from where they were going and go to where two people were having sex? Something along the lines of 'I've met a girl and she's up for a threesome' perhaps, but not that.  All adds to a sequence of events where it just screams out to me that Evans didn't give a flying fuck whether she was even conscious.


Indeed. He was offering her up to Evans  Imo. He knew she was in a vulnerable state.


----------



## Athos (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Which was inherently dodgy, given that SHE WASN'T initially accusing them of rape and had no recollection of the events.
> 
> The jury did not have to decide on whether she knowingly gave consent. Their decision was based on whether or not _Evans could reasonably have believed_ she was consenting.



Acctually, first, the jury would have to consider whether or not she did consent; only if they were sure that she did not,  would they have had to consider whether or not he did (note: not "could have") reasonably believe that she had consented. They could only convict if they were sure he did not believe she had consented.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 15, 2016)

Athos said:


> Acctually, first, the jury would have to consider whether or not she did consent; only if they were sure that she did not,  would they have had to consider whether or not he did (note: not "could have") reasonably believe that she had consented. They could only convict if they were sure he did not believe she had consented.


Indeed or had the capacity to consent


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> So fucking what? That makes no difference at all.
> 
> You think they were wrong to prosecute, don't you?


Peculiar that the posters who screamed about "the Left" defending sexual assaulters on the Cologne thread are all so worried about the supposed ramifications of finding scumbag like Evans guilty. Almost as if they didn't give a shit about the women assaulted and where just using it as a some political tool.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> How? By them prosecuting Evans? What else have they done to her?


By persuading her to go support a complaint of a crime that she had absolutely no memory of being committed and the only witnesses to which were her alleged assailants, you pork-brained windbag. 


belboid said:


> You think they were wrong to prosecute, don't you?


In retrospect, yes. 

Abso-fucking-lutely.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Which was inherently dodgy, given that SHE WASN'T initially accusing them of rape and had no recollection of the events.



So do you think that rape charges should never be brought if the victim has no recollection of it happening?


----------



## Athos (Oct 15, 2016)

So, the further evidence (which came to light after the original conviction, and when Evans' supporters were offering rewards for evidence that would support an appeal) is simply that X liked doggy style sex, and told partners to fuck her harder. That was ruled admissible because of the similarities to Evans' account of what happened that night. Perhaps notable that his version of events saw widely known before the new witness have accounts of similar conduct.


----------



## Athos (Oct 15, 2016)

1%er said:


> Indeed or had the capacity to consent


That would be part of the first limb i.e. whether she did consent.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> By persuading her to go support a complaint of a crime that she had absolutely no memory of being committed and the only witnesses to which were her alleged assailants, you pork-brained windbag.
> 
> In retrospect, yes.
> 
> Abso-fucking-lutely.


It's scum like you to blame for rapists knowing they can get away with it. You don't understand the law, but are so fucking sure that you do. You're fucking dangerous.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 15, 2016)

Wilf said:


> It struck me as pretty grim and also suggested this was a routine, something they'd done before.  Otherwise, why the actual fuck would someone divert from where they were going and go to where two people were having sex? Something along the lines of 'I've met a girl and she's up for a threesome' perhaps, but not that.  All adds to a sequence of events where it just screams out to me that Evans didn't give a flying fuck whether she was even conscious.



I agree ..totally..with all that . Ive posted earlier in the thread that it's a certainty they must have pulled this routine before . Except his mates message made no inference at all the girl was incapable . So Evans can get around that one . 

The case isn't whether or not though Evans has a despicable mentality or cared one way or another. Ultimately it boils down to whether he had a belief she was capable of giving consent . Proving...beyond reasonable doubt... he didn't believe her capable of consent strikes me as pretty impossible under the circumstances. And that's we're the issue of her claim she would never consent to sex with a stranger comes in . If it can be proven that's not true , that's were the case of her incapability at the time starts to unravel . the CPS case seems to have foundered on that point more than anything . From what I can see. Reasonable doubt..under law..gets introduced when it's proven otherwise . 

Cold comfort but even if he was definitely guilty..something I certainly don't discount...at least he served the sentence and he's exposed as the scumbag he is . Even The Scum is taking that line . So that's something .

I think the much bigger issue here is as regards what precedent, if any, this case has for the future .


----------



## 1%er (Oct 15, 2016)

Athos said:


> That would be part of the first limb i.e. whether she did consent.


I'm quoting from para 15 of this rather informative document linked to about 5 hours ago


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2016)

Athos said:


> So, the further evidence (which came to light after the original conviction, and when Evans' supporters were offering rewards for evidence that would support an appeal) is simply that X liked doggy style sex, and told partners to fuck her harder. That was ruled admissible because of the similarities to Evans' account of what happened that night. Perhaps notable that his version of events saw widely known before the new witness have accounts of similar conduct.


'Is there anyone out there who might decide to have the same recollections as me - for money?'


----------



## Gromit (Oct 15, 2016)

TBH i feel for the woman in this case. Since operation YewTree i think that there is a slight culture of police and CP staff wanted to make a big splash by nabbing a celeb.

This poor woman has been caught in the middle of it. They interviewed her numerous times digging for dirt and asking her questions like Do you sleep around with strangers?
Even if you did (and i'm not saying its wrong, a more sexually liberated and less repressed society is a good thing imo) how are most people going to answer that? Embarrassed denial and then you find yourself trapped in a web of what originally seemed like white lies but slowly become serious. So serious you dare not change your story. Trapped due to police and cps pressure. 

Quite rightly her Id was covered up. But they released his. He's famous. Loads of fans. They track her down and make her life a misery. I'll be honest, I myself suspected she was after a payout, which does not seem to be the case so my apologies to her. I don't care enough to give a shit about it though. Dunno why these stupid fans did. Nutters.

That would have been avoided if they'd kept his ID a secret too. However that then denies the prosecution a chance of unknown witnesses coming forward and saying actually he's done this that and the other to us.  Which to some see as more important than protecting any innocent men that get accused of similar crimes or worse. I can see their point but i can also sympathize with the innocently accused. Its a tough call imo.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

Athos said:


> Acctually, first, the jury would have to consider whether or not she did consent; only if they were sure that she did not,  would they have had to consider whether or not he did (note: not "could have") reasonably believe that she had consented. They could only convict if they were sure he did not believe she had consented.


Yes, fair point


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 15, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Peculiar that the posters who screamed about "the Left" defending sexual assaulters on the Cologne thread are all so worried about the supposed ramifications of finding scumbag like Evans guilty. Almost as if they didn't give a shit about the women assaulted and where just using it as a some political tool.



Who would that be ?

I don't believe anyone here gives a flying fuck about Evans . What has been raised ..very breifly..is a general legal principle that applies to everyone. The removal of a requirement for reasonable doubt as regards convictions in criminal cases . And if you can't see the dangerous ramifications for everyone in that scenario then you're a complete fucking idiot . Unlikely you could introduce a reasonable defence were that , being a fucking idiot, an actual crime .


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 15, 2016)

with reluctant eyes I took a gander at the mail headline in the shop- knock me down with a feather 'why was this womans sexual history brought as evidence?' 

even a stopped clock I suppose...


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> It's scum like you to blame for rapists knowing they can get away with it.


Yeah .... cos I wrote the law 


> You don't understand the law, but are so fucking sure that you do.


Which bit am I misunderstanding then, you ridiculous turd?


----------



## Athos (Oct 15, 2016)

1%er said:


> I'm quoting from para 15 of this rather informative document linked to about 5 hours ago


Yes. It says what I just did i.e. that capacity goes to the first limb - whether or not she did in fact consent.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah .... cos I wrote the law
> 
> Which bit am I misunderstanding then, you ridiculous turd?


Consent, reasonable person, reasonable doubt, dispute. For starters


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

Raheem said:


> So do you think that rape charges should never be brought if the victim has no recollection of it happening?


Unfortunately, when the alleged victim has no recollection and there are no other witnesses, I think it makes it extraordinarily difficult to secure a safe conviction. As we've seen here.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> Consent, reasonable person, reasonable doubt, dispute. For starters


 Read the transcript that's been posted.

Or just fuck off. Moron.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Read the transcript that's been posted.
> 
> Or just fuck off. Moron.


You're part of the problem


----------



## 1%er (Oct 15, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yes. It says what I just did i.e. that capacity goes to the first limb - whether or not she did in fact consent.


I'm not sure if you are making a point or not, I said "indeed" which was agreeing with you and just added the remainder of the text from the transcript


----------



## Raheem (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Unfortunately, when the alleged victim has no recollection and there are no other witnesses, I think it makes it extraordinarily difficult to secure a safe conviction. As we've seen here.



That sounds a little different from what you suggested above.

In this case, there were other witnesses, and other evidence such as CCTV footage.

Presumably, though, you're agreeing that the alleged victim's lack of recollection should not, in itself, be a bar to prosecution?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> You're part of the problem


Yeah. Like you're part of the solution.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 15, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Who would that be ?


It'd include you. 

The misogyny and sexism that you come out with feeds into the environment that allows filth like Evans to get away with rape 



> Looks like the Iranians will release the groundsheet anyway .


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 15, 2016)

Stupid little man


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Some men have argued for decades about how it's often all but impossible to 'prove' rape because it's just one persons word against another's. It seemed like we'd moved on from that a little over the last decade or so. But now we're heading right back again, leaning over backwards to be 'fair' to abusers and predators, making shitty distinctions between rape and bad sex. I've never really been keen on the phrase 'rape culture' but it's starting to look like it's all too accurate.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Presumably, though, you're agreeing that the alleged victim's lack of recollection should not, in itself, be a bar to prosecution?


Not in itself. But the weight of other evidence needs to be appropriately compelling. A jury decided that it wasn't here.

Do you believe (assuming that you've read the transcript), beyond a reasonable doubt, that Evans _could not_ have reasonably thought that the woman was consenting?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> Some men have argued for decades about how it's often all but impossible to 'prove' rape because it's just one persons word against another's. It seemed like we'd moved on from that a little over the last decade or so. But now we're heading right back again, leaning over backwards to be 'fair' to abusers and predators, making shitty distinctions between rape and bad sex. I've never really been keen on the phrase 'rape culture' but it's starting to look like it's all too accurate.


Oddly enough, I can imagine the police congratulating themselves on this case before it came to trial, because it wasn't merely a case of her word against his. It must have looked fairly compelling at the time. They thought they had plenty of independent evidence, an admission by the defendant that intercourse had taken place, and they seem to have believed that as X had no memory of events and stuck by that, she couldn't have consented. 

The case has exposed some false assumptions.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> Some men have argued for decades about how it's often all but impossible to 'prove' rape because it's just one persons word against another's. It seemed like we'd moved on from that a little over the last decade or so. But now we're heading right back again, leaning over backwards to be 'fair' to abusers and predators, making shitty distinctions between rape and bad sex. I've never really been keen on the phrase 'rape culture' but it's starting to look like it's all too accurate.


By being fair you mean a whole gamut of agencies have fucked up, including - but not limited to - the ccrc and court of appeal, who should have known the new evidence was tainted, and indeed the retrial judge who Orang Utan says should have thrown out the new testimony.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> making shitty distinctions between rape and bad sex.


If you can be arsed please read this.
The Pressure to Never Have Unwanted Sex
I love it, made me cry the first time. 
She teaches consent and sex education in Canada and is a hero of mine.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> Some men have argued for decades about how it's often all but impossible to 'prove' rape because it's just one persons word against another's. It seemed like we'd moved on from that a little over the last decade or so. But now we're heading right back again, leaning over backwards to be 'fair' to abusers and predators, making shitty distinctions between rape and bad sex. I've never really been keen on the phrase 'rape culture' but it's starting to look like it's all too accurate.



I certainly don't see that happening here . I think Evans is scum, a predator and even if he is innocent in this instance..which I'm not even convinced of.. I've no sympathy for the fact he served a jail sentence . Fuck him . I've believed him to be guilty since the start of this thread . Proving it though is another matter. I've no doubt at all he's a predator and a menace . and I don't see anyone at all here saying anything different on that score .

  Pointing out the case against him was a difficult one to prove doesn't even remotely equate to a belief in his innocence . pointing out where..under points of law..he managed to get his conviction quashed..doesn't even remotely amount to a single ounce of sympathy for him or any other predator . 
It's nothing more than pointing out what actually happened in the court and what the law says should happen as a result . Nothing more . There's absolutely no need to turn that into something it definitely isn't . 

Anyone who can't see what the ramifications are for ordinary men and women everywhere should the legal principle of reasonable doubt be removed in criminal cases ...especially when legal aids being cut to the bone...seriously needs their head looked at .


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Not in itself. But the weight of other evidence needs to be appropriately compelling. A jury decided that it wasn't here.
> 
> Do you believe (assuming that you've read the transcript), beyond a reasonable doubt, that Evans _could not_ have reasonably thought that the woman was consenting?


Proving again you don't understand what was required of the jury.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> By being fair you mean a whole gamut of agencies have fucked up, including - but not limited to - the ccrc and court of appeal, who should have known the new evidence was tainted, and indeed the retrial judge who Orang Utan says should have thrown out the new testimony.


A whole host do indeed seem to have fucked things up. One person/groups fuck ups don't absolve anyone else's, of course.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Not in itself. But the weight of other evidence needs to be appropriately compelling. A jury decided that it wasn't here.
> 
> Do you believe (assuming that you've read the transcript), beyond a reasonable doubt, that Evans _could not_ have reasonably thought that the woman was consenting?


The jury in the first trial believed it was. It seems you're pretty determined to believe it isn't. 

Off you go into the rape apologist box. Ta rah


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> The Pressure to Never Have Unwanted Sex
> if you can be arsed please read this.
> I love it, made me cry the first time. She is a hero of mine and teaches consent and sex education in canada.


Don't ask Bellend to read stuff. He already KNOWS THE SCORE!


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Off you go into the rape apologist box.


Silly.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

Yeah, wasn't really aimed at him personally.
Anyone who says they are here because they care about women's agency in all this should read it. Aimed it at him because he said ' shitty distinctions between rape & bad sex"


----------



## trashpony (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Silly.


No.  You're an odious misogynist arsehole and I'm sick to the back teeth of you. 

Poor fucking Chris.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> Proving again you don't understand what was required of the jury.



You are magnifying your idiocy.

Do everyone a favour and stop posting.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> If you can be arsed please read this.
> The Pressure to Never Have Unwanted Sex
> I love it, made me cry the first time.
> She teaches consent and sex education in Canada and is a hero of mine.


An interesting piece. Taking part in 'risky' behaviour is not uncommon at all, for all sorts of reasons. Sadly, quite a few men know exactly how to take advantage of people who do so, and expose them to even more danger. It all too easily becomes sexual exploitation, abuse and rape.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> You're an odious misogynist arsehole ...


Silly.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Silly.



Idiotic


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> Yeah, wasn't really aimed at him personally.
> Anyone who says they are here because they care about women's agency in all this should read it. Aimed it at him because he said ' shitty distinctions between rape & bad sex"


If you don't think there are plenty of people who make precisely that pseudo distinction (hello George Galloway) you are very sadly mistaken.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> An interesting piece. Taking part in 'risky' behaviour is not uncommon at all, for all sorts of reasons. Sadly, quite a few men know exactly how to take advantage of people who do so, and expose them to even more danger. It all too easily becomes sexual exploitation, abuse and rape.


Agree with that. But do you get her point that she is claiming the right to define her own experience not you.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Not in itself. But the weight of other evidence needs to be appropriately compelling. A jury decided that it wasn't here.



Well, one jury decided it was, then one jury decided in wasn't, and the difference was new witness evidence that *may* have been financially induced.



> Do you believe (assuming that you've read the transcript), beyond a reasonable doubt, that Evans _could not_ have reasonably thought that the woman was consenting?



I haven't spent days straight sitting in a courtroom and a jury room hearing all the evidence and thinking about it, so I'm not going to gainsay the jury's decision. My only point is to object to reactionary and artificial reasons why the case should not have come to court.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You are magnifying your idiocy.
> 
> Do everyone a favour and stop posting.


You posted a false statement regarding what the jury needed to believe in order to find Evans guilty - that "Evans _could not_ have reasonably thought that the woman was consenting?"

That is not what the law requires. Quite simple.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

bimble said:


> Agree with that. But do you get her point that she is claiming the right to define her own experience not you.


Good thing I'm not defining her experience then.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

Raheem said:


> I haven't spent days straight sitting in a courtroom and a jury room hearing all the evidence and thinking about it, so I'm not going to gainsay the jury's decision. My only point is to object to reactionary and artificial reasons why the case should not have come to court.


Ok, you seem quite reasonable, but have you read the transcript that was posted earlier?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> No.  You're an odious misogynist arsehole and I'm sick to the back teeth of you.
> 
> Poor fucking Chris.


Kris


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

belboid said:


> Good thing I'm not defining her experience then.


Get off the thread you fucking dolt.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> No.  You're an odious misogynist arsehole and I'm sick to the back teeth of you.
> 
> Poor fucking Chris.


This is so stupid. A lot like those men who took to twitter to hurl abuse at x.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 15, 2016)

I know I'm really emotional about this.This is hugely personal to me I've said that I'm a rape victim - at least once - on this thread. It hasn't even fucking been acknowledged. Just ignored, glossed over. 

Do you know why I mention it all the time rape comes up? Because I'm trying desperately to tell myself it's not my fault. But really I still think it is, 20 years later. My own stupid fault. And I expect most of you would think that too. If it came up in court - you'd absolutely believe him, not me. You don't even give me the courtesy of acknowledging me, why on earth would you want to hear me? 

Every single post on this thread and on every single other rape thread picks over victims' testimony like carrion. It's painful to me and to a lot of the other women on urban who have been raped and sexually assaulted (there's loads of us - what a surprise). This is a place of community, where we should feel safe and cared for, where we have shared histories, and shared futures. A lot of us have met friends, lovers, life partners here. But this thread exposes that feeling of safety for the lie that it is. Men hold us in disdain. We are disbelieved, our testimonies mean nothing, we are sluts and whores. 

I'm sick of the echo chamber.


----------



## bimble (Oct 15, 2016)

I'm sorry trashpony if I've added to making you feel ignored and unsafe. Please forgive me, I've been coming from head not heart on this and get stuff wrong sometimes.


----------



## belboid (Oct 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Get off the thread you fucking dolt.


Do fuck off. You don't know what you're talking about and are peddling dangerous myths. You may well genuinely believe you are right, but that's still no excuse.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> I know I'm really emotional about this.This is hugely personal to me I've said that I'm a rape victim - at least once - on this thread. It hasn't even fucking been acknowledged. Just ignored, glossed over.
> 
> Do you know why I mention it all the time rape comes up? Because I'm trying desperately to tell myself it's not my fault. But really I still think it is, 20 years later. My own stupid fault. And I expect most of you would think that too. If it came up in court - you'd absolutely believe him, not me. You don't even give me the courtesy of acknowledging me, why on earth would you want to hear me?
> 
> ...


It was not your fault you were raped. It was the fault of the man who raped you, not yours.


----------



## SqueakyBumTime (Oct 15, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Pisspoor



You do realise you're not Crowley, don't you?

Explain the pisspooredness


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 15, 2016)

trashpony said:


> I know I'm really emotional about this.This is hugely personal to me I've said that I'm a rape victim - at least once - on this thread. It hasn't even fucking been acknowledged. Just ignored, glossed over.


It hasn't been acknowledged because most long term posters are aware of it, and it's impossible to respond objectively to someone who is posting subjectively. It's why I haven't torn into you for falsely accusing me of being ... all sorts. 


> Do you know why I mention it all the time rape comes up? Because I'm trying desperately to tell myself it's not my fault. But really I still think it is, 20 years later. My own stupid fault. And I expect most of you would think that too. If it came up in court - you'd absolutely believe him, not me.


I believe you.

Nobody on this thread (that I can recall) has said they categorically believe Evans. Nobody on this thread has blamed the woman.



> Every single post on this thread and on every single other rape thread picks over victims' testimony like carrion. It's painful to me and to a lot of the other women on urban who have been raped and sexually assaulted (there's loads of us - what a surprise). This is a place of community, where we should feel safe and cared for, where we have shared histories, and shared futures. A lot of us have met friends, lovers, life partners here. But this thread exposes that feeling of safety for the lie that it is. Men hold us in disdain. We are disbelieved, our testimonies mean nothing, we are sluts and whores.


This is a bulletin board where experiences and views are discussed. This part of the boards (P&P) is _not_ your safe space. There has been a rake of information posted that doesn't agree with you but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

I'm sorry that anything I've posted has upset you enough for you to call me the things you have.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 16, 2016)

trashpony said:


> I know I'm really emotional about this.This is hugely personal to me I've said that I'm a rape victim - at least once - on this thread. It hasn't even fucking been acknowledged. Just ignored, glossed over.
> 
> Do you know why I mention it all the time rape comes up? Because I'm trying desperately to tell myself it's not my fault. But really I still think it is, 20 years later. My own stupid fault. And I expect most of you would think that too. If it came up in court - you'd absolutely believe him, not me. You don't even give me the courtesy of acknowledging me, why on earth would you want to hear me?
> 
> ...


There's such a huge difference of experience between someone like me who is just angry about Evans and rape culture and yourself who has experienced it. I think that great divide makes it difficult sometimes to say anything meaningful to victims in online discussions like this.  that's not put forward as a defence from me, more a feeling of emotional inadequacy, about (not) responding to someone else's pain. I'm sorry though.


----------



## planetgeli (Oct 16, 2016)

bimble said:


> This is so stupid. A lot like those men who took to twitter to hurl abuse at x.



Sorry, can't see that.

Male twitterati proactively call for raping and hanging of X.

TrashPony reacts, whether you agree or disagree how she does it or not, to gender imbalance of power in forum, law and wider society.

I think there's a lot of difference, not a lot of 'like'.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

belboid said:


> Do fuck off. You don't know what you're talking about and are peddling dangerous myths. You may well genuinely believe you are right, but that's still no excuse.


Go to bed, you fucking thick prick.


----------



## bimble (Oct 16, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> Sorry, can't see that.
> 
> Male twitterati proactively call for raping and hanging of X.
> 
> ...


I was defending a friend and certainly wouldn't have been so harsh had I read trashoonys later longer post first. Spymaster is not what she called him is all, but I understand now why that happened.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

bimble said:


> I was defending a friend and certainly wouldn't have been so harsh had I read trashoonys later longer post first. Spymaster is not what she called him ...


Thank you.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 16, 2016)

trashpony said:


> I know I'm really emotional about this.This is hugely personal to me I've said that I'm a rape victim - at least once - on this thread. It hasn't even fucking been acknowledged. Just ignored, glossed over.
> 
> Do you know why I mention it all the time rape comes up? Because I'm trying desperately to tell myself it's not my fault. But really I still think it is, 20 years later. My own stupid fault. And I expect most of you would think that too. If it came up in court - you'd absolutely believe him, not me. You don't even give me the courtesy of acknowledging me, why on earth would you want to hear me?
> 
> ...



I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but my reasons for not acknowledging your saying you were raped is that I have nothing insightful or useful to say about it, asking questions about it seems to me (rightly or wrongly) inappropriate and simply stopping to acknowledge it seems (rightly or wrongly) patronising. I guess that points up that sexual violence is an awkward thing to talk about, particularly when it comes to personal experience.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

Liked because I feel pretty much the same way .


----------



## miktheword (Oct 16, 2016)

If it means anything, I reckon a lot of men reading this on here have questioned themselves having had very drunken sex..consent not explicitly asked for by either side. From being in the company of football hooligans (Tottenham, early 80s) talking about how they're  gonna do one of their own cos 'no -one likes rapists, to the demonised Millwall  a few years back, singing ' she said no, L***, she said no''. The Trump locker room shite has been dispelled by recent interviews with US baseball players;  
my now long term partner has alluded to being assaulted years back..not talked about openly,,, I would if she wanted to...but she doesn't want to, or to watch that certain series in EastEnders, barmaid getting raped, or the recent National Treasure, or The Fall,,all because of abuse; I've had drunken sex where consent hasn't been asked by either side, many spontaneous times; questioning myself recently due only to changes in CPS process; (on an 18-30, a woman who knew of me through her friends, grabbed me one drunked night, spoke, we had sex, no words were exchanged. didn't last long and both returned to what we were doing before...questioned myself when reading this thread - how can you have sex without asking her name?..  but me and all me mates knew and would have stopped anything non consensual...the demonization would've been against any bloke forcing himself..certainly not against the woman.

And I reckon a few should change their minds that seem determined to abuse CR, having read his posts on this.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

belboid said:


> You posted a false statement regarding what the jury needed to believe in order to find Evans guilty - that "Evans _could not_ have reasonably thought that the woman was consenting?"
> 
> That is not what the law requires. Quite simple.



Whilst I wouldn't have worded it as he did, you'd have to be really keen to split hairs to take issue with Spymaster's description of the second limb of the definition of rape. 

In practice, there's no real difference between saying that, to find him guilty they'd need to decide beyond reasonable doubt that he did not reasonably believe in consent, and that they'd find him guilty if they concluded he could not have reasonably believed in consent. The 'could not' is just another way of saying that they must be sure he did not believe in consent. 

At most, you're arguing about whether or not 'could not' its an absolute, or implies some threshold to exclude fanciful possibilities. Which, given the context his position is pretty clear.

You're both coming across as a bit silly with this spat, on this thread in particular.  Especially in light of Trashpony having shared what happened to her.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

This case has left me with very mixed feelings.

Personally, from all that I've read, I think I'd have gone with a guilty verdict if I'd been a juror, even on the second jury.

But it raises so many important questions: the apparent retrograde step of allowing the examination of X's sexual history; the questions about evidence coming to light after the offer of a reward; the real problem in proving cases of this kind, and whether there's an argument for a different standard of proof; and, the question of whether, in light of the admissibility of the new evidence, the CPS should have proceeded with a retrial, given how traumatising that was likely to be for X, versus the desire to hold this scumbag to account.

Most terrifying of all, and a genuine surprise to me, is the level of vitriolic misogyny out there. Generally, and in terms of the impact on X.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> This case has left me with very mixed feelings.
> 
> Personally, from all that I've read, I think I'd have gone with a guilty verdict if I'd been a juror, even on the second jury.
> 
> ...


Honestly mate,  if it's come as a surprise to you, then you just having been paying attention.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Honestly mate,  if it's come as a surprise to you, then you just having been paying attention.


I knew it existed, of course. But the extent of it is what's shocked me. Men and women (whom is previously regarded as pretty sound) down my local calling her a "lying slut" and saying she deserves to go to prison.


----------



## bemused (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> But it raises so many important questions: the apparent retrograde step of allowing the examination of X's sexual history[..]



I don't know if he did it or not, but, from the outside looking in allowing her previous sexual partners to give evidence seems deeply unfair. The so-called evidence as reported in the press seems to centre on her liking a drink and having fun in bed - it wasn't clear to me why that mattered or what point that proved in relation to the case?


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

bemused said:


> I don't know if he did it or not, but, from the outside looking in allowing her previous sexual partners to give evidence seems deeply unfair. The so-called evidence as reported in the press seems to centre on her liking a drink and having fun in bed - it wasn't clear to me why that mattered or what point that proved in relation to the case?



I think the alleged relevance was that the defence could show that she habitually had sex in a particular way (doggie, and asking for it harder) that was identical to what Evans described, which it was suggested gave credence to his version of events.

Personally, I find that problematic for a number of reasons: first, I think any similarity could easily be coincidence, since that's hardly an unusual way to have sex; secondly, I don't think that evidence ought to be sufficiently compelling to allow a victim's sex life to be examined in court (because of the harm to her and the disincentive to other women to report rape); and, thirdly, that the evidence came to light after both his account had been made public and after a reward had been offered.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 16, 2016)

bemused said:


> I don't know if he did it or not, but, from the outside looking in allowing her previous sexual partners to give evidence seems deeply unfair. The so-called evidence as reported in the press seems to centre on her liking a drink and having fun in bed - it wasn't clear to me why that mattered or what point that proved in relation to the case?


She was asked if she was the sort to have sex with a stranger. She said no. 
This was somehow used as evidence towards lack of consent. 

The previous sexual partners testimony was to somehow counterpoint this. 

As has been previously stated by Keithy it should be irrelevant to the defense. 
Chaste women and unchaste women can still be raped. To which I agree. 

I'd also argue that it should also have been irrelevant to the prosecution side too. I'd never slept with a stranger either... until the first time.


----------



## bemused (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> [...]thirdly, that the evidence came to light after both his account had been made public and after a reward had been offered.



Was the reward ever paid out?


----------



## killer b (Oct 16, 2016)

How would we know?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

Woman aren't allowed to like a drink and fun in bed...if they do it means they probably consented to sex with someone they don't remember being there...


----------



## bemused (Oct 16, 2016)

Gromit said:


> As has been previously stated by Keithy it should be irrelevant to the defense.
> Chaste women and unchaste women can still be raped. To which I agree.



That's what I don't understand and I assume there were long legal arguments where judges concluded it was relevant to the case - but from what's reported it doesn't seem to be that important. As I understand it she doesn't remember what happened that night so I would imagine that would be the central area of consideration in the case; not what sort of sex she enjoys.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Gromit said:


> She was asked if she was the sort to have sex with a stranger. She said no.
> This was somehow used as evidence towards lack of consent.
> 
> The previous sexual partners testimony was to somehow counterpoint this.
> ...



I'm not sure that is how the new evidence was used; the witness had made that point in a statement before the first trial, but the defence decided not call him. The new evidence was specifically about the position and what she said during sex.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

bemused said:


> Was the reward ever paid out?



They say not.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Woman aren't allowed to like a drink and fun in bed...if they do it means they probably consented to sex with someone they don't remember being there...


That's undoubtedly the subtext.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

bemused said:


> That's what I don't understand and I assume there were long legal arguments where judges concluded it was relevant to the case - but from what's reported it doesn't seem to be that important. As I understand it she doesn't remember what happened that night so I would imagine that would be the central area of consideration in the case; not what sort of sex she enjoys.


The point is that it was argued that it made his account of what happened more credible (though I disagree).


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> The point is that it was argued that it made his account of what happened more credible (though I disagree).



That and the supposed inability to remember it the next day . Or am I wrong on that detail ?


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> That and the supposed inability to remember it the next day . Or am I wrong on that detail ?



I don't think the fact that she couldn't remember it the next day was ever disputed.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> I knew it existed, of course. But the extent of it is what's shocked me. Men and women (whom is previously regarded as pretty sound) down my local calling her a "lying slut" and saying she deserves to go to prison.


Ahh sorry, if you mean people you though better of, that's a bit different. Yeah that's horrible when some one you think is OK comes out with some right shit.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 16, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Woman aren't allowed to like a drink and fun in bed...if they do it means they probably consented to sex with someone they don't remember being there...


Well the other problem we have is that everyone is prejudiced as to how someone behaves under the influence by how they behave under the influence. 

I have a friend who is the gentlest person in the world. This doesn't change when he drinks lager. 
If he drinks cider however he gets violent. 

I worked with a girl who was compelled to snog men when drunk. She snogged me once then we had to have the embarrassing 'talk' about what it meant (nothing) in work the next Monday. 
Despite this talk we snogged again on a night out. 
Then on a third occasion she heading for me for a snog and this time I turned her down having learnt it was just the drink and not her wanting to snog me. She then proceeded to snog some complete stranger in front of me. 
She later got a boyfriend but continued to snog strangers (but not sleep with them) when out drunk with us her workmates. 
I've never met anyone who behaved like her when drunk since so it's no indication of how people behave when drunk it was just her quirk. 

Some people blackout. 
Some people pretend that they blackout as that's preferable to admitting to the cringeworthy stuff they do when drunk. 

We're all different.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> ...the questions about evidence coming to light after the offer of a reward ...


You realise that this isn't the case with the first witness, right? Only the second.

As I posted last night, the first came forward to the police on the day of Evan's conviction and his statement was taken a month later. That was before the reward was offered.

Again, this is all in the transcript that nobody seems to have bothered to read.


----------



## bimble (Oct 16, 2016)

This is so awful, so counterproductive. There seem to be a lot of people doing what she's doing, well intentioned maybe but exacerbating massively the problem they're trying to help with.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> I knew it existed, of course. But the extent of it is what's shocked me. Men and women (whom is previously regarded as pretty sound) down my local calling her a "lying slut" and saying she deserves to go to prison.


What really fucks me of is that these people obviously know nothing of the case. It's just an excuse to vent their mysogyny and hatred.

Anyway Evans himself says this about her



> The social media stuff, I don’t condone whatsoever. I don’t agree with it. It’s not been easy for her. I know that. I think it was a situation that got taken out of our hands from an early stage. She never said anybody raped her. She said she had a blackout but that didn’t mean, like it was said in court, that she didn’t consent. My behaviour that night was not acceptable – but it wasn’t a crime.’



From here Ched Evans calls for more education on alcohol and consent


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> I knew it existed, of course. But the extent of it is what's shocked me. Men and women (whom is previously regarded as pretty sound) down my local calling her a "lying slut" and saying she deserves to go to prison.


There is a basic but widespread misunderstanding out there that she made a false accusation of rape. Again, people not acquainting themselves with the facts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2016)

bimble said:


> This is so awful, so counterproductive. There seem to be a lot of people doing what she's doing, well intentioned maybe but exacerbating massively the problem they're trying to help with.
> 
> View attachment 94011


The road to hell is paved with good intentions


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> I don't think the fact that she couldn't remember it the next day was ever disputed.



No I meant on the other occasions with these men..or one or other of them .


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> There is a basic but widespread misunderstanding out there that she made a false accusation of rape. Again, people not acquainting themselves with the facts.



The fucking media are mostly to blame . More than a few of them are still today claiming she was his accuser in their headlines .


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You realise that this isn't the case with the first witness, right? Only the second.
> 
> As I posted last night, the first came forward to the police on the day of Evan's conviction and his statement was taken a month later. That was before the reward was offered.
> 
> Again, this is all in the transcript that nobody seems to have bothered to read.



At the time he came forward, there was no mention of what was later allowed as new evidence; that was added some time later.

Did you read the link?!


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

16 months later, in fact.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> No I meant on the other occasions with these men..or one or other of them .


The first of the new witnesses statements was confined solely to that point, and was deemed irrelevant and inadmissible.


----------



## bimble (Oct 16, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> No I meant on the other occasions with these men..or one or other of them .


Yes, one of the men said that she woke up and asked him what had happened the night before.
"On one occasion he said that the woman woke up in the bed next to him the following morning and had no memory of what had happened.
He said: “She asked me if anything had happened the night before. It was like she didn’t know nothing.“I was surprised because I did not think she was that drunk... "
I have no clue if that's true or not, of course, but that's what he said.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> You're both coming across as a bit silly with this spat, on this thread in particular.  Especially in light of Trashpony having shared what happened to her.


The spat's not really about this. Bellend knows he's wrong here. He is the biggest cunt in the world, bar none. Our history goes back years.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> ....that the evidence came to light after both his account had been made public and after a reward had been offered.


Again, this is a misunderstanding that is dealt with in the judges transcript. The detail that they gave was not reported when they gave their statements.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> At the time he came forward, there was no mention of what was later allowed as new evidence; that was added some time later.


This is explained in the CA's judgment. He made contact with the defence because the complainant had sex with him two weeks after her encounter with Evans and he found this surprising/alarming. The defence solicitor did not ask him for the detail and he didn't volunteer it (which makes sense, given that it was the fact that sex had taken place that concerned him rather than the specifics). The evidence about positions, language and memory loss was only obtained when he was thoroughly interviewed later.

The defence made the point in the CA that, if his evidence was fabricated or part of a conspiracy to exonerate Evans, why didn't he provide all of the detail from the outset? The innocent explanation - that he didn't say because he wasn't asked - is credible.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> I'm not sure that is how the new evidence was used; the witness had made that point in a statement before the first trial, but the defence decided not call him.


This is true, but the appeal court judges knew about it.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Again, this is a misunderstanding that is dealt with in the judges transcript. The detail that they gave was not reported when they gave their statements.



Hang on, I'm not sure you've got a handle on what the transcript says. The witnesses first made statements about her liking doggie and being vocal on  09/09/13 and 03/12/15, respectively.  Both considerably later than the conviction. Both witnesses failed to mention those points when providing their first statements (years earlier). By the time they made the latter statements, Evans' version of events was on record, and the rewards had been offered.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Woman aren't allowed to like a drink and fun in bed...if they do it means they probably consented to sex with someone they don't remember being there...


No it doesn't. 

It suggests that they _may have_ consented to sex and subsequently forgotten due to black out. 

How would you protect against this happening?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No it doesn't.



Read my post in the context of those before it. What I posted is exactly the subtext of the abuse and vitriol spouted against X.

Also note my use of the word 'probably'. People have been far too willing to think the worst of her IMO and yes I believe that is due to misogyny. Whether people are conscious of it or not, it's there.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> Hang on, I'm not sure you've got a handle on what the transcript says. The witnesses first made statements about her liking doggie and being vocal on  09/09/13 and 03/12/15.  Both considerably later than the conviction. Both witnesses failed to mention those points when providing their first statements (years earlier). By the time they made the latter statements, Evans' version of events was on record, and the rewards had been offered.


That's not what I meant. It was about what was reported.

You said that doggie style and "fuck me harder" had been reported in the press (made public). They never were. The judges said that that detail was almost identical to Evans' evidence and that it had not been reported at the time of the statements.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

bimble said:


> This is so awful, so counterproductive. There seem to be a lot of people doing what she's doing, well intentioned maybe but exacerbating massively the problem they're trying to help with.
> 
> View attachment 94011



I said it yesterday evening and got dogs abuse for it but I think this type of response is doing way more harm than good . Sending totally the wrong messages to victims and abusers alike .


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> That's not what I meant. It was about what was reported.
> 
> You said that doggie style and "fuck me harder" had been reported in the press. They never were. The judges said that that detail was almost identical to Evans' evidence and that it had not been reported at the time of the statements.


I said made public. It had been.  See para 38.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> I said made public. It had been.  See para 38.


Yes sorry, I edited after you quoted. Will look at p38.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

MAD-T-REX said:


> This is explained in the CA's judgment. He made contact with the defence because the complainant had sex with him two weeks after her encounter with Evans and he found this surprising/alarming. The defence solicitor did not ask him for the detail and he didn't volunteer it (which makes sense, given that it was the fact that sex had taken place that concerned him rather than the specifics). The evidence about positions, language and memory loss was only obtained when he was thoroughly interviewed later.
> 
> The defence made the point in the CA that, if his evidence was fabricated or part of a conspiracy to exonerate Evans, why didn't he provide all of the detail from the outset? The innocent explanation - that he didn't say because he wasn't asked - is credible.


Another argument could be that this hasn't been the thrust of the defence case at the time of the first statements.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

This just beggars belief .

Evans wants to set himself up as some sort of sex advice guru to young footballers . His advice when they encounter a paralytic drunk woman " think twice " . His advice doesn't seem to be " don't " . Much less " don't hop into a taxi , peer through windows, con your way into hotel rooms , scale fire escapes etc to indulge  in depraved antics with  vulnerable strangers you never met before ." 

And he wasn't " young and stupid " , he was an active fucking predator working in cahoots with scumbags . 
One detail I wasn't aware of was one of the others in his company that night assaulted and kicked another woman while they were out on the town before his own escapade . Right bunch of charmers .

Ched Evans calls for more education on alcohol and consent

Also taking a law suit against his original law firm . No idea what that's about . Hope it bankrupts him .


----------



## hegley (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> As I posted last night, the first came forward to the police on the day of Evan's conviction and his statement was taken a month later. That was before the reward was offered.


And yet he initially only came forward because he couldn't understand "why she would sleep with someone so soon after a rape". It wasn't until he was approached by a friend, who also happened to be a mate of Ched Evans, that suddenly his statement is about her memory loss - convenient, considering that had become the focus of the defence. 

Then, a year later - after Ched Evans' sister has also got involved with the witness, his statement becomes about sexual positions and phrases used.


----------



## Looby (Oct 16, 2016)

The Stanford uni rapist Brock Turner has decided that he's going to devote his life to educating students on promiscuity and booze. Fucking unbelievable.


----------



## hegley (Oct 16, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Evans wants to set himself up as some sort of sex advice guru to young footballers .


I seem to recall Brock Turner said something similar when he got out of jail about talking to young people about alcohol and consent. 
Edit: Looby beat me to it.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> I said made public. It had been.  See para 38.


Check p66.


----------



## bimble (Oct 16, 2016)

Does anyone understand why McDonald, the other bloke (the one who called Evans over) was aquitted in the first trial but Evans found guilty? 
That's always confused me because she had no recollection of anything after leaving the nightclub that night.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 16, 2016)

Looby said:


> The Stanford uni rapist Brock Turner has decided that he's going to devote his life to educating students on promiscuity and booze. Fucking unbelievable.


Which is what, I wonder? 'don't drink too much because a predator like me will try to get their 20 minutes of action*?' 

*the phrase used by his father to describe the rape committed by his son, for those less familiar with the case.


----------



## Looby (Oct 16, 2016)

bimble said:


> Does anyone understand why McDonald, the other bloke (the one who called Evans over) was aquitted in the first trial but Evans found guilty?
> That's always confused me because she had no recollection of anything after leaving the nightclub that night.


I think it was argued that because she willingly went back to the hotel with him so he could have reasonably believed that she'd consented to sex with him.


----------



## Looby (Oct 16, 2016)

bimble said:


> Does anyone understand why McDonald, the other bloke (the one who called Evans over) was aquitted in the first trial but Evans found guilty?
> That's always confused me because she had no recollection of anything after leaving the nightclub that night.


Oops


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

hegley said:


> And yet he initially only came forward because he couldn't understand "why she would sleep with someone so soon after a rape". It wasn't until he was approached by a friend, who also happened to be a mate of Ched Evans, that suddenly his statement is about her memory loss - convenient, considering that had become the focus of the defence.


Because he wasn't asked about it and had no reason then to believe it relevant.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 16, 2016)

bimble said:


> Does anyone understand why McDonald, the other bloke (the one who called Evans over) was aquitted in the first trial but Evans found guilty?
> That's always confused me because she had no recollection of anything after leaving the nightclub that night.


I 'd need to look at the court transcript to be sure, but suspect there was evidence to support consent with McDonald earlier in the evening, such as conversations.  Remember,  Evans didn't even speak to the woman, he just appeared in the room and joined in.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Check p66.



That just means that it was only after the appeal hearing that the Court of Appeal became aware (from the CCRC) that the detail of Evans' account had been made public before the witnesses made their later statements, and that, because it hadn't been tested in that appeal hearing, it had to be disregarded for the purposes of the appeal decision. It doesn't suggest that the details of Evans' account weren't in the public domain by the time both witnesses made their later statements.

I'm sorry, but I think you're wrong about this.

The appeal was allowed because of two witnesses' new evidence concerning sexual positions and vocal encouragement.

A significant difference between the first and second trial was that the new evidence was heard. It may have been the decisive factor.

The witnesses failed to provide that evidence when they made their first statements.  By the time they did so (years later), Evans' version of events had been made public, it was clear that what they would go on to say could become the new focus of the defence case, and there had been public offers of rewards for evidence leading to acquittal.  And that's not to mention their connections to those involved with the Evans campaign.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

hegley said:


> I seem to recall Brock Turner said something similar when he got out of jail about talking to young people about alcohol and consent.
> Edit: Looby beat me to it.



I doubt in either case it will be free of charge . Employment opportunities limited so pay cheque plus an opportunity to paint themselves as caring sorts . And victims of circumstance and strange laws they weren't acquainted with . Rather than predatory little shits .


----------



## bimble (Oct 16, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> I 'd need to look at the court transcript to be sure, but suspect there was evidence to support consent with McDonald earlier in the evening, such as conversations.  Remember,  Evans didn't even speak to the woman, he just appeared in the room and joined in.


Yes, that makes sense. But still, this is from the judge's statement back then at the end of that 1st trial, when Evans was charged & McDonald acquitted.

'Judge Merfyn Hughes QC stated in his sentencing remarks that: "The complainant was 19 years of age and was extremely intoxicated. _CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend. As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse. _When you arrived at the hotel, you must have realised that."[1]

It looks like he's saying that the CCTV proves she was not in a fit state to give meaningful consent, so I'd have thought that would go for 'i've got a girl' McDonald, too.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> I 'd need to look at the court transcript to be sure, but suspect there was evidence to support consent with McDonald earlier in the evening, such as conversations.  Remember,  Evans didn't even speak to the woman, he just appeared in the room and joined in.



I think given that she went to the hotel with him willingly, however intoxicated, plus being heard to say _don't leave me _or words to that effect the assumption is that she consented to being there with him.

Such a shame there isn't a law against taking a vulnerable/intoxicated person back to a hotel room and then offering her up to your scumbag mate.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> I'm sorry, but I think you're wrong about this.
> 
> The appeal was allowed because of two witnesses' new evidence concerning sexual positions and vocal encouragement.
> 
> ...


Ok, but how could that evidence not be allowed to be heard? If it had been in the first trial chances are he wouldn't have been convicted. What if those guys are NOT lying?

It's not just a technicality, it's massively compelling. If Evans heard her say "fuck me harder" he had good reason to believe she was consenting and wasn't raping her. 

The judges at least have to allow a jury to hear it and make up their own minds. The prosecution can tell the jury their concerns about it, but it has to be heard.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> It's not just a technicality, it's massively compelling. If Evans heard her say "fuck me harder" he had good reason to believe she was consenting and wasn't raping her.



Too many what ifs! What if CE came into the room once X and M were already at it, what if she was saying that to M, what if CE simply joined in without her knowing he was there? She could have thought it was M all along or been unable to stop it. What if, what if!

It's compelling alright and no doubt compelled the jury to let the fucking scumbag off. Convenient though, far too fucking convenient.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 16, 2016)

One thing having an enuthastic shag with someone you picked up.

Another having twos up with his mate


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Ok, but how could that evidence not be allowed to be heard? If it had been in the first trial chances are he wouldn't have been convicted. What if those guys are NOT lying?
> 
> It's not just a technicality, it's massively compelling. If Evans heard her say "fuck me harder" he had good reason to believe she was consenting and wasn't raping her.
> 
> The judges at least have to allow a jury to hear it and make up their own minds. The prosecution can tell the jury their concerns about it, but it has to be heard.



OK, so you now concede the point about the timing, but continue to argue that it should have been admissible?

Why exclude it? Because of all the problems with the background of that evidence, to which I've already pointed.

And the more fundamental point about its probative value. I doubt you could find a sexually active woman who hadn't had doggie and asked to be fucked harder.  Such that, even if their account was true, it tells us so little about what happened with Evans as to be outweighed by other factors which weigh against admissibility.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Too many what ifs!.


It's just one; what they're telling the truth?

If he heard her say that it means he probably didn't rape her.

Can you say they're lying beyond a reasonable doubt?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> If he heard her say that it means he probably didn't rape her.


 I think i illustrated in my post that this doesn't necessarily follow at all.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 16, 2016)

My particular favourite is the way Evans describes his behaviour as 'unacceptable'. 'reprehensible', 'predatory' and 'revolting' are closer to the mark.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> My particular favourite is the way Evans describes his behaviour as 'unacceptable'. 'reprehensible', 'predatory' and 'revolting' are closer to the mark.



All words I would use to describe a rapist.


----------



## bimble (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> OK, so you now concede the point about the timing, but continue to argue that it should have been admissible?
> 
> Why exclude it? Because of all the problems with the background of that evidence, to which I've already pointed.
> 
> And the more fundamental point about its probative value. I doubt you could find a sexually active woman who hadn't had doggie and asked to be fucked harder.  Such that, even if their account was true, it tells us so little about what happened with Evans as to be outweighed by other factors which weigh against admissibility.


This is a really good point. I think the criteria for admitting any evidence about x's sexual encounters is that it has to be so strikingly similar as to be no way just a coincidence. If she'd said something really unusual or liked some arcane position or whatever then maybe that 'exceptional' criteria could be legitimately argued.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> My particular favourite is the way Evans describes his behaviour as 'unacceptable'. 'reprehensible', 'predatory' and 'revolting' are closer to the mark.



For all we know the unacceptable bit just means he shouldn't have been unfaithful to his partner . Means fuck all .

Scum .

And all this happens just minutes after another one of his scummy mates was putting the boot into another woman he'd punched to the ground outside a kebab shop . 

Really depressing .


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> It's just one; what they're telling the truth?
> 
> If he heard her say that it means he probably didn't rape her.
> 
> Can you say they're lying beyond a reasonable doubt?



You don't have to. That's not the test. They could be telling the truth, and he could still have raped her.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 16, 2016)

I have been wondering if there was any history of Evans doing this with other women, whether on his own, with McDonald or other teammates/friends. After all, if her sexual history was deemed admissible why not his?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> I have been wondering if there was any history of Evans doing this with other women, whether on his own, with McDonald or other teammates/friends. After all, if her sexual history was deemed admissible why not his?



Uff, good question. 

The 'i've got a girl' comment is what builds this for me, as Wilf pointed out...it suggests there was an understanding of some kind between them. Who and how she was were irrelevant, she was 'his' to do with what he pleased, including giving her up to his mate...


----------



## Diamond (Oct 16, 2016)

My flatmate knows his partner reasonably well from his days managing restaurants and bars which were part of the Manchester "football scene".

He doesn't paint a very flattering picture - very driven young woman who was utterly focused on becoming a WAG.

I think that's part of the whole picture here - the fact that she has defiantly stood by him throughout is illustrative of the dynamic that underlies the social lives of all of those involved here.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Diamond said:


> My flatmate knows his partner reasonably well from his days managing restaurants and bars which were part of the Manchester "football scene".
> 
> He doesn't paint a very flattering picture - very driven young woman who was utterly focused on becoming a WAG.
> 
> I think that's part of the whole picture here - the fact that she has defiantly stood by him throughout is illustrative of the dynamic that underlies the social lives of all of those involved here.



Yeah, it's got to be a woman's fault, somehow.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

Diamond said:


> I think that's part of the whole picture here - the fact that she has defiantly stood by him throughout *is illustrative of the dynamic that underlies the social lives of all of those involved here.*



Please spell this out for me. What does it illustrate?


----------



## Diamond (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yeah, it's got to be a woman's fault, somehow.





Athos said:


> Yeah, it's got to be a woman's fault, somehow.



Not see where you see blame there....?


----------



## Diamond (Oct 16, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Please spell this out for me. What does it illustrate?



The Manchester football scene. Isn't that clear from my post?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

Diamond said:


> The Manchester football scene. Isn't that clear from my post?



You said it was illustrative of the dynamics that underlie the social lives of all those involved. Please spell them out to me, I am not from Manchester, nor into the football scene. You've made a claim, please explain it.


----------



## bemused (Oct 16, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> I have been wondering if there was any history of Evans doing this with other women, whether on his own, with McDonald or other teammates/friends. After all, if her sexual history was deemed admissible why not his?



IIRC he was questioned about this sexual practices and admitted to other threesomes with other footballing chums, he does seem rather slimy.


----------



## Diamond (Oct 16, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> You said it was illustrative of the dynamic that underlie the social lives of all those involved. Please spell them out to me, I am not from Manchester, nor into the football scene. You've made a claim, please explain it.



Neither am I!

My flatmate - ex manager of bars and restaurants (more restaurants actually - he has Giggs, Scholes and Fergie's details on his phone still for bookings etc for example) and who knows Ched Evans' partner said as much to me yesterday morning.

In fact he had a bunch of his Manchester crowd round on the Friday who were down for a night out and they were saying similar things.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> You don't have to. That's not the test. They could be telling the truth, and he could still have raped her.


When I say them, I include him. He said she urged him to fuck her harder. If she did, he can reasonably have assumed consent and he didn't rape her.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I think i illustrated in my post that this doesn't necessarily follow at all.


Eh? Why not?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2016)

Diamond said:


> My flatmate knows his partner reasonably well from his days managing restaurants and bars which were part of the Manchester "football scene".
> 
> He doesn't paint a very flattering picture - very driven young woman who was utterly focused on becoming a WAG.
> 
> I think that's part of the whole picture here - the fact that she has defiantly stood by him throughout is illustrative of the dynamic that underlies the social lives of all of those involved here.


Is this group sex flatmate?


----------



## Diamond (Oct 16, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Is this group sex flatmate?



No - a friend of her's from Manchester though, incidentally


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2016)

Diamond said:


> No - a friend of her's from Manchester though, incidentally


Cheers, just wondered if we'd met them before


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

bemused said:


> IIRC he was questioned about this sexual practices and admitted to other threesomes with other footballing chums, he does seem rather slimy.



They all do . Scum the lot of them .


----------



## Wilf (Oct 16, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Uff, good question.
> 
> The 'i've got a girl' comment is what builds this for me, as Wilf pointed out...it suggests there was an understanding of some kind between them. Who and how she was were irrelevant, she was 'his' to do with what he pleased, including giving her up to his mate...


Yep, the 'I've got a girl' text seemed to me to be shorthand for a clear agreement about everything that was to follow. Confirmed by Evans immediately stopping what he was about to do - even more important than reporting a racially motivated assault apparently... and then by all the sneaking into the room, leaving early, concealing his identity. I'm obviously not privy to what was said, if anything , in terms of consent, I don't know how capable of giving consent she seemed to him. However, as you say, these are issues he didn't give a shit about. Courts do what courts do, they have particular standards of evidence and certainty.  However, even a cursory glance at the sequence of events and his agreed behaviour screams out that this was a vile predatory act.

I might be reaching on this, but psychologically Evans seemed to be playing the role of alpha male with supporting entourage in all this. 'Giving her up' seems an appropriate way of putting it. Always have to remember that courts see evidence in particular ways - utterly spurious 'new evidence' in this case. However I think it's also legitimate for outsiders like us on this thread to make a reasoned judgement about what was going on.  I think it was pretty clear what was going on in this case.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yeah, it's got to be a woman's fault, somehow.


_cherchez la femme_


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

Diamond said:


> Neither am I!
> 
> My flatmate - ex manager of bars and restaurants (more restaurants actually - he has Giggs, Scholes and Fergie's details on his phone still for bookings etc for example) and who knows Ched Evans' partner said as much to me yesterday morning.
> 
> In fact he had a bunch of his Manchester crowd round on the Friday who were down for a night out and they were saying similar things.



Right, but you are still not saying anything of any substance to support your claim that this is illustrative....illustrative of what? Name dropping doesn't describe anything.

'Similar things' - What does that mean ffs?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Eh? Why not?



Read my post again?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Yep, the 'I've got a girl' text seemed to me to be shorthand for a clear agreement about everything that was to follow. Confirmed by Evans immediately stopping what he was about to do - even more important than reporting a racially motivated assault apparently... and then by all the sneaking into the room, leaving early, concealing his identity. I'm obviously not privy to what was said, if anything , in terms of consent, I don't know how capable of giving consent she seemed to him. However, as you say, these are issues he didn't give a shit about. Courts do what courts do, they have particular standards of evidence and certainty.  However, even a cursory glance at the sequence of events and his agreed behaviour screams out that this was a vile predatory act.
> 
> I might be reaching on this, but psychologically Evans seemed to be playing the role of alpha male with supporting entourage in all this. 'Giving her up' seems an appropriate way of putting it. Always have to remember that courts see evidence in particular ways - utterly spurious 'new evidence' in this case. However I think it's also legitimate for outsiders like us on this thread to make a reasoned judgement about what was going on.  I think it was pretty clear what was going on in this case.


Being as there's a lot of people saying things from your utterly spurious to allegations of perjury perhaps the role of the ccrc in this should be considered. After all, they felt the evidence weighty enough to refer the case to the court of appeal.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Yep, the 'I've got a girl' text seemed to me to be shorthand for a clear agreement about everything that was to follow. Confirmed by Evans immediately stopping what he was about to do - even more important than reporting a racially motivated assault apparently... and then by all the sneaking into the room, leaving early, concealing his identity. I'm obviously not privy to what was said, if anything , in terms of consent, I don't know how capable of giving consent she seemed to him. However, as you say, these are issues he didn't give a shit about. Courts do what courts do, they have particular standards of evidence and certainty.  However, even a cursory glance at the sequence of events and his agreed behaviour screams out that this was a vile predatory act.
> 
> I might be reaching on this, but psychologically Evans seemed to be playing the role of alpha male with supporting entourage in all this. 'Giving her up' seems an appropriate way of putting it. Always have to remember that courts see evidence in particular ways - utterly spurious 'new evidence' in this case. However I think it's also legitimate for outsiders like us on this thread to make a reasoned judgement about what was going on.  I think it was pretty clear what was going on in this case.



Nothing about their behaviour before or after suggests her 'consent' was ever important to them. I doubt she was even conscious when they left the hotel.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 16, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Cheers, just wondered if we'd met them before


Isn't it interesting how he has a mate for every occasion.


----------



## Diamond (Oct 16, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Right, but you are still not saying anything of any substance to support your claim that this is illustrative....illustrative of what? Name dropping doesn't describe anything.
> 
> 'Similar things' - What does that mean ffs?



Just trashing the scene really and everyone involved with it - footballers, WAGs and hangers-on.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Too many what ifs! What if CE came into the room once X and M were already at it, what if she was saying that to M, what if CE simply joined in without her knowing he was there? She could have thought it was M all along or been unable to stop it. What if, what if!


Well that's just "what if he raped her?", and there's no testimony to any of it. There is testimony, albeit his and M's, that she urged him on.

Do you deny that if Evans heard her say "fuck me harder" _to him_ , it probably wasn't rape?


----------



## Raheem (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> You don't have to. That's not the test. They could be telling the truth, and he could still have raped her.



Yes. The only thing where "reasonable doubt" applies is a guilty verdict. Judgements about what to accept and what to believe are just that. Hardly anyone would ever be convicted of anything if the courts looked and all the various facts of a case and decided whether they were true beyond reasonable doubt.

In this case, the judge decided to accept new evidence (or, more accurately, had that decision made for them by the somewhat secretive CCRC) when there were real questions about the reliability of the evidence, and when the new evidence was actually quite limited in terms of its impact on the facts of the case. It helped to suggest that the alleged victim may have blacked out before, but this doesn't make Evans innocent. It also corroborated some of Evans' testimony about her sexual behaviour, but given the possibility that the evidence may have been bought and the fact that it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that we are talking about coincidence rather that actual corroboration, this might not be considered particularly strong evidence. On the other hand, allowing the evidence allowed a lot of the trial to be given over to examining the character and sexual morals of the alleged victim in a way that might have made the jury less sympathetic towards her.

The tricky bit is that you have the CCRC taking lots of private representations from expensive lawyers and effectively imposing on the retrial court, in an unappealable decision, that it has to allow the defence to throw whatever mud it likes at the alleged victim.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well that's just "what if he raped her?", and there's no testimony to any of it. There is testimony, albeit his and M's, that she urged him on.
> 
> Do you deny that if Evans heard her say "fuck me harder" to him , it probably wasn't rape?



I am not even convinced she even knew he was there, let alone consented to sex with him or told him to fuck her harder. As you say we only have those two scumbags word for it and given the way in which they set this up/behaved before and after I find it very difficult to believe them.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I am not even convinced she even knew he was there, let alone consented to sex with him or told him to fuck her harder. As you say we only have those two scumbags word for it and given the way in which they set this up/behaved before and after I find it very difficult to believe them.


But you don't deny that it probably wasn't rape if Evans heard her say it to him? That's the point.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> But you don't deny that it probably wasn't rape if Evans heard her say it to him? That's the point.



Is it rape if someone consents _during_ sex? I think it probably isn't, but I'm not 100% sure.


----------



## Gromit (Oct 16, 2016)

The prejudices of our sexual society are clearly on show here. 

Drunken man being ravished by two fit young women automatically equals lucky bastard. 

Drunken woman being ravished by two fit, young, celebrity athletes automatically equals poor victim. 

If she enjoys it she's a slut. Him a stud.

People trying to video it without her consent. i.e. Through the window. Why aren't they in the dock?


----------



## likesfish (Oct 16, 2016)

But as he's an untrusty worth git with a shady sexual history why are you so keen to belive him?


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> When I say them, I include him. He said she urged him to fuck her harder. If she did, he can reasonably have assumed consent and he didn't rape her.



But the others' evidence is of very little value in establishing that fact. And that's not to mention all the other issues with it!


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> But the others' evidence is of very little value in establishing that fact. And that's not to mention all the other issues with it!


No but it does, if believed, establish a pattern of behaviour of her consenting to sex and then forgetting, which is what Evans was asserting in his defence.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> But you don't deny that it probably wasn't rape if Evans heard her say it to him? That's the point.



Are you seriously asking me if consensual sex is rape? 

The point is...do we believe him? I don't.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

I haven't been following this thread too closely so this may already have come up. Until today I wasn't aware of one rather pertinent fact: the woman in question has never claimed she was raped. Not then. Not subsequently. Never.
Police only got involved when she went to report a lost (or stolen) handbag. The rape charges came entirely from the contributions the two accused made when questioned about it.
Had they opted for a 'no comment' reply it would have been next to impossible to bring any charges whatsoever.
People can make up their own minds about what that says about what they accused might thought of their own conduct.
But the fact remains: it was not the alleged victim, but the _police_ _alone_ who determined she had been raped. When people talk of the case setting unfortunate legal precedents, surely that is another one to consider?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No but it does, if believed, establish a pattern of behaviour of her consenting to sex and then forgetting, which is what Evans was asserting in his defence.



Yep, they managed, after years, and offering of a bribe, to seemingly _establish_ a pattern of behaviour.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No but it does, if believed, establish a pattern of behaviour of her consenting to sex and then forgetting, which is what Evans was asserting in his defence.



No, that's not what the evidence was adduced to prove. It was relied upon to demonstrate that the way in which Evans claimed to have sex with her was habitual for her, as evidence that Evans' account was true.  As if the type of sex described is so unusual that the similarity between accounts cannot be explained by coincidence. 

The evidence that these two men (who had links to those close to Evans) added years after their first account, when his version of effects was public, and following the offer of a reward.


----------



## bemused (Oct 16, 2016)

likesfish said:


> But the fact remains: it was not the alleged victim, but the _police_ _alone_ who determined she had been raped. When people talk of the case setting unfortunate legal precedents, surely that is another one to consider?



Surely they needed her support to bring the case?


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 16, 2016)

The police didn't need her support at all. They believed the evidence they'd collected was sufficient. She was a compellable witness - in other words, the prosecution ordered her to give evidence at the trial.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> I haven't been following this thread too closely so this may already have come up. Until today I wasn't aware of one rather pertinent fact: the woman in question has never claimed she was raped. Not then. Not subsequently. Never.
> Police only got involved when she went to report a lost (or stolen) handbag. The rape charges came entirely from the contributions the two accused made when questioned about it.
> Had they opted for a 'no comment' reply it would have been next to impossible to bring any charges whatsoever.
> People can make up their own minds about what that says about what they accused might thought of their own conduct.
> But the fact remains: it was not the alleged victim, but the _police_ _alone_ who determined she had been raped. When people talk of the case setting unfortunate legal precedents, surely that is another one to consider?


They were unlikely not to admit having had sex, knowing that there was a good chance that it could be proved forensically.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

bemused said:


> Surely they needed her support to bring the case?


No. He support wouldn't be necessary.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> No, that's not what the evidence was adduced to prove. It was relied upon to demonstrate that the way in which Evans claimed to have sex with her was habitual for her, as evidence that Evans' account was true.  As if the type of sex described is so unusual that the similarity between accounts cannot be explained by coincidence.


Don't be fucking ridiculous, it was both. You honestly think that one of those witnesses saying that he'd slept with her 4 or 5 times and each time she had asked in the morning if anything happened, was irrelevant?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Are you seriously asking me if consensual sex is rape?
> 
> The point is...do we believe him? I don't.


Well the point is that after hearing the new evidence a jury couldn't say they didn't.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Don't be fucking ridiculous, it was both. You honestly think that one of those witnesses saying that he'd slept with her 4 or 5 times and each time she had asked in the morning if anything happened, was irrelevant?



The first witness had said that from the outset. It was considered irrelevant and inadmissible for the purposes of the first appeal. See para 20 of the transcript to which you linked!

I'm afraid you can't get away from the fact that this turned on the new evidence, which came to light in the circumstances described.


----------



## jcsd (Oct 16, 2016)

Raheem said:


> The tricky bit is that you have the CCRC taking lots of private representations from expensive lawyers and effectively imposing on the retrial court, in an unappealable decision, that it has to allow the defence to throw whatever mud it likes at the alleged victim.



The process is the CCRC  (who are non-governmental, but publicly-funded organisation) receives an application form the defendant, they then decide whether to review the defendant's case, if they do review the case and if they feel there has been a possible miscarriage of justice the CoA is then obliged to consider the case. The CCRC is not behoven to the defendant or their legal team to review the case, nor are the behoven to refer the case to the CoA, and nor are the CoA behoven to the CCRC to quash the conviction. Many applications do not lead to a review, many reviews do not lead to a referral to the CoA and often the CoA do not quash convictions.

It certainly it helps to have someone who knows what is likely to be considered important new evidence or important new legal argument, but however expensive the lawyers, they can't manufacture new evidence or a new legal argument from thin air (unless they're crooked of course, but I don't think that's accusation here).

Also once evidence of sexual history is allowed to be admitted the scope is clearly pre-defined and pre-approved by the Judge who will only approve the admission of evidence that is directly relevant to the facts or the prosecution argument (i.e. it cannot be used as just a mud-slinging exercise)

Now honestly I do not know if the verdict was wrong or right: I wasn't there, I wasn't at the trials and don't know the people concerned. All I know about the case is that which was reported in the media and the media are often selective about what they report.

I am not claiming to be an expert, and people are more than entitle to disagree, but I know a little about these processes and I don't think the criticisms are necessarily well-aimed. I feel there has to be a process for miscarriages of justice to be detected and put right and there has to be a process for all potentially-relevant evidence to be considered and I wouldn't like to see the legal system hamstrung in these regards.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2016)

jcsd said:


> The process is the CCRC  (who are non-governmental, but publicly-funded organisation) receives an application form the defendant, they then decide whether to review the defendant's case, if they do review the case and if they feel there has been a possible miscarriage of justice the CoA is then obliged to consider the case. The CCRC is not behoven to the defendant or their legal team to review the case, nor are the behoven to refer the case to the CoA, and nor are the CoA behoven to the CCRC to quash the conviction. Many applications do not lead to a review, many reviews do not lead to a referral to the CoA and often the CoA do not quash convictions.
> 
> It certainly it helps to have someone who knows what is likely to be considered important new evidence or important new legal argument, but however expensive the lawyers, they can't manufacture new evidence or a new legal argument from thin air (unless they're crooked of course, but I don't think that's accusation here).
> 
> ...


yes. but this is trial by urban and during these proceedings the conventions and rules so commonly found in courts of law go out the window as posters bring to bear their prejudices about the case and the principals.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> They were unlikely not to admit having had sex, knowing that there was a good chance that it could be proved forensically.


Legally there was no obligation on them to say anything. They would have been made aware of this. Nonetheless they openly volunteered statements. Based on their statements the police decided to charge them on the basis she _didn't_ remember what had happened. That is surely extremely dodgy no matter what angle you are coming at it from?


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Legally there was no obligation on them to say anything. They would have been made aware of this. Nonetheless they openly volunteered statements. Based on their statements the police decided to charge them on the basis she _didn't_ remember what had happened. That is surely extremely dodgy no matter what angle you are coming at it from?



They could have said nothing, but they'd have been running the risk of a jury being told by the judge that they could draw an  adverse inference from their failure to answer questions (about something which, as far as they knew, could be easily proved). 

Put simply, the fact that they spoke isn't reliable evidence of their own appreciation of their innocence or guilt. 

Nothing in principle wrong with a victim not being able to give evidence. Else no murder conviction would succeed! 

And let's not forget that the first jury convicted (before the new evidence 'came to light').


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> The first witness had said that from the outset. It was considered irrelevant and inadmissible for the purposes of the first appeal. See para 20 of the transcript to which you linked!


I know! I linked to that paragraph yesterday. It got accepted into evidence as a result of the subsequent stuff about  him and was seen by the jury that acquitted.


> I'm afraid you can't get away from the fact that this turned on the new evidence, which came to light in the circumstances described.


No shit Sherlock? I just disargee with you that it shouldn't have been heard.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I know! I linked to that paragraph yesterday. It got accepted into evidence as a result of the subsequent stuff about  himand was seen by the jury that acquitted.
> 
> No shit Sherlock? I just disargee with you that it shouldn't have been heard.



So evidence that would otherwise have been inadmissible in and of itself was put before a jury as a consequence of the new evidence coming to light. And you see no problem with this?


----------



## Raheem (Oct 16, 2016)

jcsd said:


> Also once evidence of sexual history is allowed to be admitted the scope is clearly pre-defined and pre-approved by the Judge who will only approve the admission of evidence that is directly relevant to the facts or the prosecution argument (i.e. it cannot be used as just a mud-slinging exercise).



But it's the CCRC that formulates the grounds for appeal. So, in this case, by the time it comes to the second trial, the judge doesn't have the option of narrowing the scope in terms of what sexual history evidence is admitted. That would make a mockery of the system and would be grounds for appeal by the defence.

In formal terms, I am not saying that the process is rigged or anything like that. But it isn't fully transparent, and I think you have to wonder whether part of the reason why Evans got off is that the CCRC were confronted with a small army of lawyers working very hard on behalf of people with a financial interest in ensuring that it will be as hard a possible in future to convict rapey footballers.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No shit Sherlock? I just disargee with you that it shouldn't have been heard.




Well, in fairness, that's because you've changed your position. Earlier, you were arguing about the timing of the new evidence (which you seem to have conceded, now).


----------



## crossthebreeze (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well that's just "what if he raped her?", and there's no testimony to any of it. There is testimony, albeit his and M's, that she urged him on.
> 
> Do you deny that if Evans heard her say "fuck me harder" _to him_ , it probably wasn't rape?


McDonald didn't testify at the second trial: the jury asked the judge if they could see transcripts of his police interviews (so they could compare Evan's account of event to McDonalds, but that was not allowed.  So its Evan's word only.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> So evidence that would otherwise have been inadmissible in and of itself was put before a jury as a consequence of the new evidence coming to light.


Why was it considered inadmissible in the first place? It meant bringing up her sexual history. 

I seem to remember you yourself holding the position when the conviction was quashed, that the only new evidence that would be relevant would be evidence suggesting that she frequently forgot about consenting. And there it was. Before any rewards had ever been offered.   

(I apologise if I'm mistakenly attributing this view to you, btw)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm not defending anything. I don't support Ched Evans. It's not like I've slagged off x. You want to make accusations of perjury, fine; but why not put your money where your mouth is?



Frankly, it's not necessarily about perjury - lying to the court - as about the effects of outside narratives on memory, and the effects of your own preconceptions on your own memory. Memory is very easy to warp, as barristers well know. The problem is proving that it has been.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Frankly, it's not necessarily about perjury - lying to the court - as about the effects of outside narratives on memory, and the effects of your own preconceptions on your own memory. Memory is very easy to warp, as barristers well know. The problem is proving that it has been.


yes. but trashpony seemed to me to be saying that this evidence was mendacious, incredible and had been manufactured to order.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> which is tainted as fuck and should have been thrown out imo.



I'm surprised as fuck that the defence didn't make hay about the inexactness of memory, and that the period of time between _A_ and _B_ makes it highly likely that the memory was tainted in conformity to what the later witnesses *wanted* to believe.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> Earlier, you were arguing about the timing of the new evidence (which you seem to have conceded, now).


I have. But it doesn't change the fact that the evidence was there, it just makes it possible that it was fed to them. It doesn't prove it. This hinges on whether you believe that they were corrupt and have perjured themselves for a share in this elusive 50 grand or believe that they may not have.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. but trashpony seemed to me to be saying that this evidence was mendacious, incredible and had been manufactured to order.


Most of the posters on here are saying exactly that.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Why was it considered inadmissible in the first place? It meant bringing up her sexual history.
> 
> I seem to remember you yourself holding the position when the conviction was quashed, that the only new evidence that would be relevant would be evidence suggesting that she frequently forgot about consenting. And there it was. Before any rewards had ever been offered.
> 
> (I apologise if I'm mistakenly attributing this view to you, btw)



The crucial factor was the material added to their account. Whether that's because of the content of the additional material, or insofar as it was a mechanism to allow other evidence (previously inadmissible) to be heard. That material only was added after his account was made public, and following the offer of a reward. And, let's remember that the initial account was prompted by the witness' understanding of how a rape victim should behave, and because he thought she was a gold digger.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. but trashpony seemed to me to be saying that this evidence was mendacious, incredible and had been manufactured to order.



That *is* possible, too. Although I'm no expert in psycho-sexual dynamics, I am surprised at someone apparently having said the same thing on three occasions when assuming the same position. Most people don't fall into repetitive behaviour when drunk, even if actually getting drunk is a repetitive behaviour for them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> That *is* possible, too. Although I'm no expert in psycho-sexual dynamics, I am surprised at someone apparently having said the same thing on three occasions when assuming the same position. Most people don't fall into repetitive behaviour when drunk, even if actually getting drunk is a repetitive behaviour for them.


back in the day when i was a gentleman of the afternoon and spent much of the day in the pub, i met this man who told me in great and indeed fascinating detail of how he was building a scale model of a stradivarius. apparently the secret of the sound is in the varnish. i left the pub quite interested by this. i bumped into him again some weeks later when he told me exactly the same thing in exactly the same words. this time it was less interesting. when i was told precisely the same thing a couple of months later i gave the acquaintanceship up as a bad job.

another acquaintance of the afternoon was someone who no matter what the original topic of conversation was, within five minutes you were talking about german weapons of the second world war.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> The crucial factor was the material added to their account. Whether that's because of the content of the additional material, or insofar as it was a mechanism to allow other evidence (previously inadmissible) to be heard. That material only was added after his account was made public, and following the offer of a reward. And, let's remember that the initial account was prompted by the witness' understanding of how a rape victim should behave, and because he thought she was a gold digger.


None of which changes the fact that there had been a statement that X frequently had no memory of the previous nights activities, that wasn't heard. And as you stated, this was before the reward was in the mix.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2016)

trashpony said:


> No one has called Ruby Blue anything for pointing that out. Bimble misunderstood what I was saying



It's amazing how often she does that "misunderstanding" thing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's amazing how often she does that "misunderstanding" thing.


and how rarely its converse.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I have. But it doesn't change the fact that the evidence was there, it just makes it possible that it was fed to them. It doesn't prove it. This hinges on whether you believe that they were corrupt and have perjured themselves for a share in this elusive 50 grand or believe that they may not have.



No it doesn't. There's also the question of what probative value a jury could properly attach to something that we have no reason to think it's anything more than a coincidence i.e. the proper application of s.41.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> No it doesn't. There's also the question of what probative value a jury could properly attach to something that we have no reason to think it's anything more than a coincidence i.e. the property application of s.41.


property application?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Sure. But the alternative is to reduce the standard of proof to something less than _beyond a reasonable doubt, _and that opens a fucking massive can of worms.



Within the current - institutionally sexist - criminal justice system, it'd be unlikely to happen, anyway. Any shift of the burden of proof would be taken as "positive discrimination" by most of the right-wing media, and by most tinpot MRA activists around the net, and the whining would be so loud as to deafen us all.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> None of which changes the fact that there had been a statement that X frequently had no memory of the previous nights activities, that wasn't heard. And as you stated, this was before the reward was in the mix.



It was inadmissible. It only became admissible after the witnesses changed their accounts, much, much later.

But we're going round and round, now. I can see you're determined to defend what happened, to the exetent that your position remains the same even as specific elements are shown to be wrong. So I can't see much value in its continuing this.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> property application?


Proper. Corrected now.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> No, it wasn't "in the mix." It was inadmissible. It only became admissible after the witnesses changed their accounts, much, much later.
> 
> But we're going round and round, now. I can see you're determined to defend what happened, to the exetent that your position remains the same even as specific elements are shown to be wrong. So I can't see much value in its continuing this.


You seem to be deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying, so yes, perhaps best to end this.

The only thing I was wrong about was the timing of the statements, and that doesn't really matter.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 16, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Within the current - institutionally sexist - criminal justice system, it'd be unlikely to happen, anyway. Any shift of the burden of proof would be taken as "positive discrimination" by most of the right-wing media, and by most tinpot MRA activists around the net, and the whining would be so loud as to deafen us all.


I can think of about 20 different reasons why reducing the burden of proof in any criminal trial is a terrible idea. It wouldn't just be 'tinpot MRA activists' whining.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You seem to be deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying so yes, perhaps best to end this.
> 
> The only thing I was wrong about was the timing of the statements, and that doesn't really matter.



Those later statements are what the case turned on (in terms of the additional evidence iyself, and in getting around the inadmissibility of earlier evidence). The circumstances in which they were made (including the timing) are absolutely crucial.  Either you genuinely don't understand that, or you're deliberately misrepresenting the facts. Either way, we've probably gone as far as we can.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2016)

trashpony said:


> I know I'm really emotional about this.This is hugely personal to me I've said that I'm a rape victim - at least once - on this thread. It hasn't even fucking been acknowledged. Just ignored, glossed over.
> 
> Do you know why I mention it all the time rape comes up? Because I'm trying desperately to tell myself it's not my fault. But really I still think it is, 20 years later. My own stupid fault. And I expect most of you would think that too. If it came up in court - you'd absolutely believe him, not me. You don't even give me the courtesy of acknowledging me, why on earth would you want to hear me?
> 
> ...



It's *NEVER* the fault of the victim. Even if the victim is naked and aroused, a rapist has no right to carry out their crime. Consent - and the absence of it - are all that matters. We unfortunately have a criminal justice system - and a set of normative societal codes - that have been developed over 300 years of modern law, that have manipulated the term consent, and loaded it with many loopholes that lawyers can use to get scumbag rapists off the hook. Add to that the *massive* weight of social attitudes towards violence against women in general - remember the social media avalanche of females excusing Chris Brown beating the shit out of Rihanna? - and rape in particular, and every woman (or man, for that matter) who is raped, is playing against a set of loaded legal and social dice. The powers-that-be know this, but they don't give a shit. The _status quo_ is fine by them.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The only thing I was wrong about was the timing of the statements, and that doesn't really matter.



The timing is important though. It means they could be lying by embellishing their statements to fit CE's narrative of events and to _establish_ behaviour patterns for X to make him look innocent. Oh and the little case of the 50k reward being offered and them not being complete strangers to CE either.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> Those later statements are what the case turned on (in terms of the additional evidence iyself, and in getting around the inadmissibility of earlier evidence). The circumstances in which they were made (including the timing) are absolutely crucial.  Either you genuinely don't understand that, or you're deliberately misrepresenting the facts. Either way, we've probably gone as far as we can.


You're not usually this fucking stupid so I'll give it another go.

I realise the later statements turned the case. The circumstances in which they were made may or may not have been corrupt. You and others on here are determined to believe that they were purchased for a share in a bribe, which they denied in court and has not yet been paid.

As well as the evidence that these guys gave to her wording whilst fucking, there was already evidence that she frequently forgot about consenting to sex that was considered inadmissible. I'll ask you again, why was that?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> which they denied in court and* has not yet been paid*.




How do we know that?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> How do we know that?


Just repeating what Athos and others have said on here.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 16, 2016)

And you know that people on here have criticised the prosecution brief for asking witness only if payment had been made, and not asking whether there was any understanding that payment may be made in the future.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> And you know that people on here have criticised the prosecution brief for asking witness only if payment had been made, and not asking whether there was any understanding that payment may be made in the future.


please to refresh my memory - has the question of the ccrc and court of appeal knowing about this offer of £50k been examined?


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 16, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> please to refresh my memory - has the question of the ccrc and court of appeal knowing about this offer of £50k been examined?


Without checking back I can't be 100% sure but fairly sure not - ISTR it only arose in the last trial.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You're not usually this fucking stupid so I'll give it another go.
> 
> I realise the later statements turned the case. The circumstances in which they were made may or may not have been corrupt. You and others on here are determined to believe that they were purchased for a share in a bribe, which they denied in court and has not yet been paid.
> 
> As well as the evidence that these guys gave to her wording whilst fucking, there was already evidence that she frequently forgot about consenting to sex that was considered inadmissible. I'll ask you again, why was that?



Please don't continue to misrepresent my position.  It's not solely dependent on the possibility of perjury. There's also a massive question mark around the probative value of that evidence, and the correct application of s.41.

If the witnesses added to their statements so that earlier material would become admissible, does it matter why it was inadmissible in the first place?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> They could have said nothing, but they'd have been running the risk of a jury being told by the judge that they could draw an  adverse inference from their failure to answer questions (about something which, as far as they knew, could be easily proved).
> 
> Put simply, the fact that they spoke isn't reliable evidence of their own appreciation of their innocence or guilt.
> 
> ...



Your totally missing the point. I'm not claiming the fact that because they volunteered to speak under caution was evidence of innocence. 

My point is that when they were interviewed there wasn't any evidence of an actual victim of anything - not even theft - much less rape. 

So there could not have been any admission of guilt - even inadvertently - from them. 

Without any allegation of wrongdoing of any sort, from anyone, much less evidence, police put questions to them about the events on the evening. And based _*entirely*_ on their answers decided they had enough to charge them both with rape. No allegations or evidence of abduction. No allegation or evidence of violence. No allegation of evidence of threats or coercion. Not a scintilla of evidence to support the charge of rape. Yet the CPS which is meant to only pursue cases with 51% chance of a guilty verdict signed off on it. In similar circumstances Kafka might have felt he got off lightly. 

ps 'And let's not forget the first jury' also acquitted.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 16, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> Without checking back I can't be 100% sure but fairly sure not - ISTR it only arose in the last trial.


Just looked again through the Appeal Court judgement and there's no reference to the offer of a reward. 
https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2016/chedevansappealx.pdf
This is where I first heard of it but no doubt it was aired on twitter long before: 
Second Ched Evans defence witness denies £50,000 reward motive


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> There's also a massive question mark around the probative value of that evidence, and the correct application of s.41.


Which are?


> If the witnesses added to their statements so that earlier material would become admissible, does it matter why it was inadmissible in the first place?


You're wriggling, so I'll ask another way; do you think it would've affected the outcome of the first trial if the jury had heard that X had a history of forgetting about consensual sex when she was pissed?


----------



## crossthebreeze (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Your totally missing the point. I'm not claiming the fact that because they volunteered to speak under caution was evidence of innocence.
> 
> My point is that when they were interviewed there wasn't any evidence of an actual victim of anything - not even theft - much less rape.
> 
> ...


erm, no they didn't
and the case was about the victim's capacity to consent at the time, and whether consent was sought by Evans. The definition of rape is lack of consent, it doesn't depend on violence or coercion.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> As well as the evidence that these guys gave to her wording whilst fucking, there was already evidence that she frequently forgot about consenting to sex that was considered inadmissible. I'll ask you again, why was that?



I don't think that's quite what the evidence was. Her former short-term partner said that she had previously blacked out and the next day asked if they had had sex, when in fact they hadn't. It seems like he initially said this had happened once, then changed his statement to say it had happened four times. 

In any event, it's not really evidence that tells us very much about the case. It's a given that she blacked out on the night in question and didn't remember anything, including whether or not she consented to sex with Evans. Her past history of blacking out doesn't really affect things. Unless the jury were to take the view that, since she had previously consented to sex with a man, she probably also consented to sex with Evans. Which is a good example of why allowing that type of evidence doesn't necessarily advance the interests of justice.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Which are?
> 
> You're wriggling, so I'll ask another way; do you think it would've affected the outcome of the first trial if the jury had heard that X had a history of forgetting about consensual sex when she was pissed?



I really can't tell whether you're being dense or disingenuous. But I think we've gone over this already.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> But I think we've gone over this already.


I think you may think we have. It's not the same thing.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

crossthebreeze said:


> erm, no they didn't
> and the case was about the victim's capacity to consent at the time, and whether consent was sought by Evans. The definition of rape is lack of consent, it doesn't depend on violence or coercion.



'erm no they didn't' - 

what didn't they do?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2016)

crossthebreeze said:


> erm, no they didn't
> The definition of rape is lack of consent, it doesn't depend on violence or coercion.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> 'erm no they didn't' -
> 
> what didn't they do?


The first jury didn't acquit him.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

crossthebreeze said:


> and the case was about the victim's capacity to consent at the time, and whether consent was sought by Evans. The definition of rape is lack of consent, it doesn't depend on violence or coercion.



Yes, but how did the matter of 'capacity to consent' become an issue when there was no actual allegation of rape?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The first jury didn't acquit him.



They acquitted his co-accused.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Your totally missing the point. I'm not claiming the fact that because they volunteered to speak under caution was evidence of innocence.
> 
> My point is that when they were interviewed there wasn't any evidence of an actual victim of anything - not even theft - much less rape.
> 
> ...



People have been convicted of unreported crimes on the basis of their own account, before. There's no issue with that.  

And, since the crown's case didn't turn on abduction, threats or violence, the absence of any evidence of those things is completely irrelevant.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Yes, but how did the matter of 'capacity to consent' become an issue when there was no actual allegation of rape?



The allegation came from the police. The same way it might if they found me with a bloody knife, kneeling over a dead body. There is absolutely no requirement for a victim to make an allegation for there to be a prosecution.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> They acquitted his co-accused.


And?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> People have been convicted of unreported crimes on the basis of their own account, before. There's no issue with that.


There is very definitely an issue when there is no admission or evidence of guilt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> The allegation came from the police. The same way it might if they found me with a bloody knife, kneeling over a dead body. There is absolutely no requirement for a victim to make an allegation for there to be a prosecution.


yeh. but i suppose while the investigation might come from the police, the decision to prosecute would come from the cps. just for clarification like.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> There is very definitely an issue when there is no admission or evidence of guilt.



In a case where there were no evidence of guilt, yes it definitely would be an issue.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> There is very definitely an issue when there is no admission or evidence of guilt.


There was lots of other evidence e.g. cctv and witness testimony, before the decision to prosecute.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> The allegation came from the police. The same way it might if they found me with a bloody knife, kneeling over a dead body.


Yes, but in this case there was no bloody  knife and no dead body...yet the decided to proceed anyway.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The first jury didn't acquit him.


The first jury reached a decidedly odd decision, given the evidence, convicting Evans and acquitting McDonald. Their decision appeared to have been based on an outdated, and frankly dangerous, notion that agreeing to go to McDonald's hotel room indicated consent. At the same time, going on the judge's sentencing remarks, she was considered too drunk to give consent by the time she reached the hotel. 

Juries sometimes reach weird contradictory decisions not supported by the evidence - see the Mark Duggan inquest - and this seems such a case to me. I think a new trial on exactly the same evidence would very probably have reached a different verdict.

The way the woman's sexual history was brought in for the second trial was vile, and again, something I thought had been consigned to history. She was put on trial, which is despicable - she is the only wholly blameless person in this entire mess. But imo the first conviction was a strange decision based just on the evidence presented at it. The men's story fits the provable facts, is not contradicted by anybody or any physical evidence, and is plausible, which is all that is needed for them to go free. Which is why I think it was a fuck-up to bring the case in the first place, and if this was done against the will of woman X, or if she was in any way coerced into going along with it, then the authorities have done her an enormous wrong. They seem to have been blinded by the despicable nature of Evans' and McDonald's actions to the fact that there is no, and never was any, evidence that there was a rape.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Yes, but in this case there was no bloody  knife and no dead body...yet the decided to proceed anyway.


You keep moving the goalposts. First you were concerned about the absence of an allegation, and, when that was shown to be commonplace, you complained about the lack of evidence. But, by the time of the prosecution, there was lots of evidence, including their accounts, the accounts of others, and cctv evidence.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly have you read this?
https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2016/chedevansappealx.pdf

Might be an idea to acquaint yourself with a summary of the facts before wading in. Or even read this thread. Otherwise people will just be going over the same old ground already covered in this thread while they explain things to you.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> There was lots of other evidence e.g. cctv and witness testimony, before the decision to prosecute.



But the CCTV helped acquit his co-accused a) in proving that she approached him, and b) that she walked unaided to his room with him. There was no separate evidence to convict Evans was there?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The first jury reached a decidedly odd decision, given the evidence, convicting Evans and acquitting McDonald. Their decision appeared to have been based on an outdated, and frankly dangerous, notion that agreeing to go to McDonald's hotel room indicated consent. At the same time, going on the judge's sentencing remarks, she was considered too drunk to give consent by the time she reached the hotel.
> 
> Juries sometimes reach weird contradictory decisions not supported by the evidence - see the Mark Duggan inquest - and this seems such a case to me. I think a new trial on exactly the same evidence would very probably have reached a different verdict.
> 
> The way the woman's sexual history was brought in for the second trial was vile, and again, something I thought had been consigned to history. She was put on trial, which is despicable - she is the only wholly blameless person in this entire mess. But imo the first conviction was a strange decision based just on the evidence presented at it. The men's story fits the provable facts, is not contradicted by anybody or any physical evidence, and is plausible, which is all that is needed for them to go free. Which is why I think it was a fuck-up to bring the case in the first place, and if this was done against the will of woman X, or if she was in any way coerced into going along with it, then the authorities have done her an enormous wrong. They seem to have been blinded by the despicable nature of Evans' and McDonald's actions to the fact that there is no, and never was any, evidence that there was a rape.


Good post.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> But the CCTV helped acquit his co-accused a) in proving that she approached him, and b) that she walked unaided to his room with him. There was no separate evidence to convict Evans was there?



Yes, there was e.g. the cctv showing him skulk away down the fire escape and the account of the hotel bloke.  All the evidence the prosecution relied upon.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I can think of about 20 different reasons why reducing the burden of proof in any criminal trial is a terrible idea. It wouldn't just be 'tinpot MRA activists' whining.



I think that my point has soared over your head like a Stratoliner over the surface of the Earth. 
My point is that specifically altering the burden of proof for rape would elicit outrage that other alterations - for non-sexual crimes - wouldn't. In terms of "white collar" crime, for example the "burden of proof" has had to be amended to keep in touch with technological development. Sure, we're talking about subtle alterations to accommodate new knowledge and new investigative techniques that shift the balance of what can be said to constitute "beyond reasonable doubt", but they're nonetheless alterations that don't elicit a massive outcry - maybe a muted whine from lawyers having to amend the bases of their cases, though!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Good post.


Unusual to see such a post from such a poster pa


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You're not usually this fucking stupid so I'll give it another go.
> 
> I realise the later statements turned the case. The circumstances in which they were made may or may not have been corrupt. You and others on here are determined to believe that they were purchased for a share in a bribe, which they denied in court and has not yet been paid.
> 
> As well as the evidence that these guys gave to her wording whilst fucking, there was already evidence that she frequently forgot about consenting to sex that was considered inadmissible. I'll ask you again, why was that?



Regarding the bribe, it's not beyond the wit of Massey, his daughter or Evans to find £50,000 in cash, and pay that. NO banking records, NO "evidence" of payment whatsoever.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The first jury reached a decidedly odd decision, given the evidence, convicting Evans and acquitting McDonald. Their decision appeared to have been based on an outdated, and frankly dangerous, notion that agreeing to go to McDonald's hotel room indicated consent.




Not quite. They might have concluded that she lacked the capacity to consent to sex with McDonald, but that, in light of her decision to go to the hotel with him, they couldn't be sure beyond reasonable doubt that he didn't have a reasonable belief in consent.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yes, there was e.g. the cctv showing him skulk away down the fire escape and the account of the hotel bloke.  All the evidence the prosecution relied upon.



Is that it? Is 'skulking' now considered to be sufficient of guilt?


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think that my point has soared over your head like a Stratoliner over the surface of the Earth.
> My point is that specifically altering the burden of proof for rape would elicit outrage that other alterations - for non-sexual crimes - wouldn't. In terms of "white collar" crime, for example the "burden of proof" has had to be amended to keep in touch with technological development. Sure, we're talking about subtle alterations to accommodate new knowledge and new investigative techniques that shift the balance of what can be said to constitute "beyond reasonable doubt", but they're nonetheless alterations that don't elicit a massive outcry - maybe a muted whine from lawyers having to amend the bases of their cases, though!



I think you might be confusing the burden of proof with the standard of proof.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Is that it? Is 'skulking' now considered to be sufficient of guilt?



When is the last time you skulked away from a situation?


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Is that it? Is 'skulking' now considered to be sufficient of guilt?



In itself, no. Evidence has a cumulative effect on a juror's understanding.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> I think you might be confusing the burden of proof with the standard of proof.



That's entirely possible!


----------



## Raheem (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> In itself, no. Evidence has a cumulative effect on a juror's understanding.



Just anecdotally, I've never left a hotel via the fire escape. And I've been in a hotel when there was an actual fire.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Oct 16, 2016)

Raheem said:


> I don't think that's quite what the evidence was. Her former short-term partner said that she had previously blacked out and the next day asked if they had had sex, when in fact they hadn't. It seems like he initially said this had happened once, then changed his statement to say it had happened four times.
> 
> In any event, it's not really evidence that tells us very much about the case. It's a given that she blacked out on the night in question and didn't remember anything, including whether or not she consented to sex with Evans. Her past history of blacking out doesn't really affect things. Unless the jury were to take the view that, since she had previously consented to sex with a man, she probably also consented to sex with Evans. Which is a good example of why allowing that type of evidence doesn't necessarily advance the interests of justice.


I thought earlier - before I knew what the evidence was - that there might be a point to evidence of what she behaved like if she was known to have blacked out before, but 
a) the evidence given about her state on the previous occasions was hardly detailed "I did not think she was that drunk" 
b) no details were given to suggest that she suffered as bad effects those nights as on the night of the case, when she pissed herself at some point during the night, had been seen falling over, etc - so her capacity to consent was probably not the same
c) there's a massive difference between spending the night fooling around with someone you've known since primary school and what happened in the hotel room, its comparing apples to oranges.
d) the witness directly bought up the myth that rape victims are never sexually active in the day/weeks/months after being raped, and its not clear how strongly if at all this was dispelled in court.
e) using evidence of x's sex life encourages any members of the jury who have sexist or conservative views about sexually active women to draw negative conclusions about the prosecution
f) x was forced to answer questions about her sex life in court, which must have been a horrible experience
I can't see how the legal contribution of the evidence to Evans' case outweighed the prejudicial effect against the prosecution.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Just anecdotally, I've never left a hotel via the fire escape. And I've been in a hotel when there was an actual fire.



Why might someone choose that route of exit after supposedly engaging in consensual sex do you think?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> In itself, no. Evidence has a cumulative effect on a juror's understanding.



Which would be fine if it was actual evidence rather than speculation that was accumulating.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Why might someone choose that route of exit after supposedly engaging in consensual sex do you think?



If he had also arranged to enter the hotel via the fire escape you might be able to draw a stronger conclusion from the act.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> If he had also arranged to enter the hotel via the fire escape you might be able to draw a stronger conclusion from the act.



Well if we are talking in these terms one could say that when he arrived at the hotel he hadn't actually done anything wrong yet more than being a scumbag who would go there on the promise of a 'girl' so no need to skulk in. Blagging a key though...he certainly wanted in to that room.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Which would be fine if it was actual evidence rather than speculation that was accumulating.


It seems that you do not understand what evidence is (you appear to confuse it with proof).


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> It seems that you do not understand what evidence is (you appear to confuse it with proof).


Precisely the same charge could be laid against the police and prosecution.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> As well as the evidence that these guys gave to her wording whilst fucking, there was already evidence that she frequently forgot about consenting to sex that was considered inadmissible.



I know I said I'd leave it, but...

Please would you direct me to which statement by which witness contains evidence that she had forgotton that she had consented to sex?

Because it appears from the transcript of the second appeal that the second witness didn't refer to her forgetting anything, and the first to her forgetting what had happened in occasions that intercourse hadn't taken place.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Precisely the same charge could be laid against the police and prosecution.


No, it couldn't. None of their decisions require them to have proof of guilt.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Well if we are talking in these terms one could say that when he arrived at the hotel he hadn't actually done anything wrong yet more than being a scumbag who would go there on the promise of a 'girl' so no need to skulk in. Blagging a key though...he certainly wanted in to that room.


Evans had actually paid for the room some time in advance of his co-accused 'getting the girl'. Or she getting him.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> If he had also arranged to enter the hotel via the fire escape you might be able to draw a stronger conclusion from the act.



He was plainly on CCTV entering the hotel , and indeed spoke to the bloke on the desk to get the key. Used his own name. Can't see how that was subterfuge . He never denied being there at any point . And openly admitted " having sex " with the girl. I can't really derive any guilt from that bit . 

Also iirc his mates were out the back trying to record his antics on a mobile through the window . He could plausibly have been going down to them . Also he had a long term partner , was well known, and maybe didn't want to be seen leaving a hotel in the early hours . 

Again doesn't mean he's innocent . But not evidence of guilt that would stand up.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Evans had actually paid for the room some time in advance of his co-accused 'getting the girl'.



What does that suggest to you then? Given he got a text saying 'I've got a girl' from his mate and then legged it over there.



> Or she getting him.


 That's actually pretty sick given you know how intoxicated she was and that she consented to go there with his mate not him. Perhaps you think his mate lured her there with the promise that she'd get a go with Ched?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> I know I said I'd leave it, but...
> 
> Please would you direct me to which statement by which witness contains evidence that she had forgotton that she had consented to sex?
> 
> Because it appears from the transcript of the second appeal that the second witness didn't refer to her forgetting anything, and the first to her forgetting what had happened in occasions that intercourse hadn't taken place.


3 when they'd spent the night together and no sex, a fourth where intercourse took place.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> No, it couldn't. None of their decisions require them to have proof of guilt.


Yes, proof of guilt is the jury's job. At the same time CPS need to believe that they have good reason tp believe it will end in a guilty verdict.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> 3 when they'd spent the night together and no sex, a fourth where intercourse took place.


In respect of the fourth, he didn't say that she asked what had happened the night before, though. 

So, what were you referring to when you said:
_
'... there was already evidence that she frequently forgot about consenting to sex that was considered inadmissible.'_


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Yes, proof of guilt is the jury's job. At the same time CPS need to believe that they have good reason tp believe it will end in a guilty verdict.



And, and they did. Particularly in the first trial, which did result in a conviction.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> _'... there was already evidence that she frequently forgot about consenting to sex that was considered inadmissible.'_


Ok, hair splitting but I'm happy to change that to; there was already evidence that she frequently forgot what had happened the previous night when pissed ....


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> What does that suggest to you then? Given he got a text saying 'I've got a girl' from his mate and then legged it over there.
> 
> That's actually pretty sick given you know how intoxicated she was and that she consented to go there with his mate not him. Perhaps you think his mate lured her there with the promise that she'd get a go with Ched?



As i remember it, his mate didn't actually do any 'luring'. She approached him.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 16, 2016)

Little point of interest regarding the bribes rewards for information; The 'rewards' were for information leading to the acquittal of Evans. So could not be paid prior to the jury returning a not guilty verdict.

As said previously, the Pros was a fucking dick to ask if money had been paid, he should have asked if any money is expected to be paid.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Just anecdotally, I've never left a hotel via the fire escape. And I've been in a hotel when there was an actual fire.



You're not a well known footballer with a steady partner though. Local gossip and paparazzi skulking about mightn't be too high on your list of concerns . Especially when Evans was already fairly sure there'd be media and local interest in his whereabouts after his mate Rivas despicable behaviour earlier that night . Honestly can't see how exiting by that route after all that went before ..and indeed after with his admissions..contributes to any evidence of guilt . Entering by it would be a different story though .


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Little point of interest regarding the bribes rewards for information; The 'rewards' were for information leading to the acquittal of Evans. So could not be paid prior to the jury returning a not guilty verdict.
> 
> As said previously, the Pros was a fucking dick to ask if money had been paid, he should have asked if any money is expected to be paid.



Good point.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> As said previously, the Pros was a fucking dick to ask if money had been paid, he should have asked if any money is expected to be paid.


If they're prepared to perjure themselves to the extent you believe they did anyway, saying no to that wouldn't make much difference.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> If they're prepared to perjure themselves to the extent you believe they did anyway, saying no to that wouldn't make much difference.



It would be a direct yes or no question with a provable lie should any cash subsequently change hands. 

5 years ago she uttered, "Fuck me harder", less hard to prove either way.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> He was plainly on CCTV entering the hotel , and indeed spoke to the bloke on the desk to get the key. Used his own name. Can't see how that was subterfuge . He never denied being there at any point . And openly admitted " having sex " with the girl. I can't really derive any guilt from that bit .
> 
> Also iirc his mates were out the back trying to record his antics on a mobile through the window . He could plausibly have been going down to them . Also he had a long term partner , was well known, and maybe didn't want to be seen leaving a hotel in the early hours .
> 
> Again doesn't mean he's innocent . But not evidence of guilt that would stand up.



I totally agree. I was simply responding to the allegation that he "skulked" out afterwards was crushing evidence. Now if he had skulked _in_ as well if might have strengthened that particular line of argument, such as it is.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> If they're prepared to perjure themselves to the extent you believe they did anyway, saying no to that wouldn't make much difference.



Being able to prove you've lied about the contents of a past conversation and being able to prove you received money after the outcome of a trial are different things though. The second can be investigated and evidence found. The first can't be so your word is all they have.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Ok, hair splitting but I'm happy to change that to; there was already evidence that she frequently forgot what had happened the previous when pissed ....



Hair splitting lol! Your new formulation is entirely different from saying that there is evidence that, in the past, she had been capabable of consenting to sex but incapable of remembering it. And you know it, but you've painted yourself into a corner.

You've now conceded that you were wrong about both the timing and the content of the new evidence, the two things you previously suggested were good reason for it to be admitted. But you're sticking with the idea that it should have been admitted as possible evidence of his innocence, right? Hmmm....


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Being able to prove you've lied about the contents of a past conversation and being able to prove you received money after the outcome of a trial are different things though. The second can be investigated and evidence found. The first can't be so your word is all they have.


Yes. Fair point.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> And, and they did. Particularly in the first trial, which did result in a conviction.



It resulted in one (wrongful) conviction and one acquittal.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> I totally agree. I was simply responding to the allegation that he "skulked" out afterwards was crushing evidence. Now if he had skulked _in_ as well if might have strengthened that particular line of argument, such as it is.



You've added the word "crushing."  Dishonest.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> It resulted in one (wrongful) conviction and one acquittal.



And? You've no reason to assume there was no reasonable prospect of success.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> You've added the word "crushing."  Dishonest.



Hair splitting


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> Hair splitting lol! Your new formulation is entirely different from saying that she could be capabable of consenting to sex but incapable of remembering it.



Nonsense. She didn't know on 4 occasions, on 3 they didn't shag and on 1 they did. That _absolutely_ implies that she can be capable of consenting to sex and forgetting.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Hair splitting



Not really. It goes the his confusion between evidence and proof.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> You've added the word "crushing."  Dishonest.



Well you did cite it yourself. And if it was the difference between guilt and acquittal then 'crushing' cannot honestly be deemed too strong a term can it?


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Nonsense. She didn't know on 4 occasions, on 3 they didn't shag and on 1 they did. That absolutely implies that she can be capable of consenting to sex and forgetting.



This is not true. The witness does not say that she didn't know what happened on all four occasions. Only on the three that they didn't have sex. So your assertion was completely wrong, wasn't it?


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Well you did cite it yourself. And if it was the difference between guilt and acquittal then 'crushing' cannot honestly be deemed too strong a term can it?



Alone, it wasn't the difference.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> Alone, it wasn't the difference.



So what was the other 'crushing' evidence that led one of the two defendants walking free and the other going to the slammer?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> This is not true. The witness does not say that she didn't know what happened on all four occasions. Only on the three that they didn't have sex. So your assertion was completely wrong, wasn't it?


Bollocks. 

"There is no mention in the statement of the fourth occasion when Owens and X did have intercourse but it is common ground that Owens told Ripley of it".

So you are wrong aren't you?


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> So what was the other 'crushing' evidence that led one of the two defendants walking free and the other going to the slammer?



Are your asking me to rehearse the evidence relied upon by the prosecution? Because you can find that yourself.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> Hair splitting lol! Your new formulation is entirely different from saying that is evidence that she could be capabable of consenting to sex but incapable of remembering it. And you know it, but you've painted yourself into a corner.
> 
> ..



If she had to ask that question of a bed partner 3 times in a row it is evidence in my opinion . It demonstrates she was likely capable of doing so but  the witness simply wasn't a lowlife like the other 2 and didn't initiate anything on those occasions .  If she had to ask she wouldn't have known any different . Unfortunately the girl in question obviously has / had an alcohol abuse problem  were black outs while in bed with other people seem to be a recurring thing . That badly undermines the case and introduces doubt . 

At the same time I don't believe for a second consent was anywhere on Evans list of priorities .


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> This is not true. The witness does not say that she didn't know what happened on all four occasions. Only on the three that they didn't have sex. So your assertion was completely wrong, wasn't it?



So on one occasion they were in bed together she didn't have to ask whether they had intercourse or not . It only means she never blacked out on that particular occasion, unlike all the others . She still had a habit of taking alcohol induced black outs while in bed with someone were she had no idea whether she'd had sex or not . Just as she had no idea whether or not shed had sex with the other 2 .


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly why are you JAQing off on this thread? What are you trying to elicit? That the prosecution was wrong - that if the prosecution had succeeded, any innocent man could be caught out just for doing this? (Whatever "this" is.)


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> Are your asking me to rehearse the evidence relied upon by the prosecution? Because you can find that yourself.



No. I'm asking you to point to the evidence _you _believe to be decisive.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Bollocks.
> 
> "There is no mention in the statement of the fourth occasion when Owens and X did have intercourse but it is common ground that Owens told Ripley of it".
> 
> So you are wrong aren't you?



Yes, he told Ripley they had sex. But, in respect of that forth occasion, he has *not* said that she did not remember. See para 25.

You said:

_'... there was already evidence that she frequently forgot about consenting to sex that was considered inadmissible.'_

Which witness(es) gave evidence that she forgot about consenting to sex, and when? Please refer to the relevant paragraph of the transcript.

Or, just concede that you were wrong.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> So on one occasion they were in bed together she didn't have to ask whether they had intercourse or not . It only means she never blacked out on that particular occasion, unlike all the others .



Yes, the only time they had sex, there's no suggestion she forgot it. That doesn't ammount too what Spymaster claimed the evidence was.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> No. I'm asking you to point to the evidence _you _believe to be decisive.



Have you done that? You seem to arguing a point/s that you haven't been clear about.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Nonsense. She didn't know on 4 occasions, on 3 they didn't shag and on 1 they did. That _absolutely_ implies that she can be capable of consenting to sex and forgetting.



But that wasn't an issue in the case. It's a fact that she blacked out on the night in question, so it's of course possible that she might have consented to sex and not remembered. No further evidence is needed to demonstrate that this is a possibility, even if the evidence existed. So, it's not useful to the defence, except insofar as it brings her sexual history into play.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> No. I'm asking you to point to the evidence _you _believe to be decisive.


You hadn't been asking that, at all. 

I believe the totality of the evidence I have heard - the cctv, their accounts, the hotel bloke's etc. - would have led me to return a guilty verdict.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yes, he told Ripley they had sex. But, in respect of that forth occasion, he has *not* said that she did not remember. See para 25.
> 
> You said:
> 
> ...


You're absolutely wrong. Paragraphs 18 and 19.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Have you done that? You seem to arguing a point/s that you haven't been clear about.



It's subjective. Let_ him_ answer.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> It's subjective. Let_ him_ answer.



Of course it's subjective.

I'm asking you because I have engaged with you and asked questions that you haven't answered. You made statements and implied quite a bit. You appear to have a position. Seems to me you want details that you're not willing to give of yourself.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You're absolutely wrong. Paragraphs 18 and 19.



No, you are wrong.

There is nothing in those paragraphs which suggests that witness told anyone (either Ripley, or in the latter statement) of any occasion where she had had sex and forgot that fact.

Yes, he mentioned all four occasions. But he explicitly refers to her asking what happened on the first three. There is no suggestion that, on the one occasion they had sex, she forgot.


----------



## bimble (Oct 16, 2016)

If 12 of the people here on this thread had been the jury the only certainty is we'd have taken days to reach a verdict. They jury only took 2 hours and were unanimous is that right?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Of course it's subjective.
> 
> I'm asking you because I have engaged with you and asked questions that you haven't answered.



I'm not aware of not having replied to your questions?


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yes, the only time they had sex, there's no suggestion she forgot it. That doesn't ammount too what Spymaster claimed the evidence was.



There's no suggestion she had a blackout then either. Which is the actual important bit . During her blackouts she had no memory of consenting to sex or not . I think that's whats central here . Not winning against cuntysi.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> I believe the totality of the evidence I have heard - the cctv, their accounts, the hotel bloke's etc. - would have led me to return a guilty verdict.



To be clear. You would have found_ both_ of them guilty first time up? And also on appeal?


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> There's no suggestion she had a blackout then either. Which is the actual important bit . During her blackouts she had no memory of consenting to sex or not . I think that's whats central here . Not winning against cuntysi.



She couldn't have remembered consenting to sex, because on the three occasions she didn't recall what had happened, she hasn't had sex!


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> To be clear. You would have found





Joe Reilly said:


> _both_ of them guilty first time up? And also on appeal?



Yes.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 16, 2016)

I haven't returned to this thread because I don't want to engage with it anymore. I just wanted to make that clear in case anyone was labouring under the misapprehension that I was embarrassed by my posts yesterday. I'm not and I stand by all of them. 

Thank you to the posters who were kind about my rape. It means a huge amount in a world where the default is that a man's word is truth and a woman's is deception.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> I'm not aware of not having replied to your questions?



Well maybe because you dodged them to continue inferring that X was the predator in this case.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> No, you are wrong.
> 
> There is nothing in those paragraphs which suggests that witness told anyone (either Ripley, or in the latter statement) of any occasion where she had had sex and forgot that fact.
> 
> Yes, he mentioned all four occasions. But he explicitly refers to her asking what happened on the first three. There is no suggestion that, on the one occasion they had sex, she forgot.



"Mr Owens told Mr Ripley of three separate occasions where he and X spent the night together and the next morning X asked if anything sexual had occurred, and a fourth occasion when they had intercourse". 

Similar in 19 which I quoted above. 

It refers to 4 occasions where she had no memory 3 no shags and 1 shag. Why mention the 4th occasion at all otherwise?


----------



## belboid (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> Whilst I wouldn't have worded it as he did, you'd have to be really keen to split hairs to take issue with Spymaster's description of the second limb of the definition of rape.
> 
> In practice, there's no real difference between saying that, to find him guilty they'd need to decide beyond reasonable doubt that he did not reasonably believe in consent, and that they'd find him guilty if they concluded he could not have reasonably believed in consent. The 'could not' is just another way of saying that they must be sure he did not believe in consent.
> 
> ...


it was indeed trashpony's post that made me butt the fuck out. A couple of middle aged blokes scrapping it over  something that does not primarily affect them and ignoring the people who it does affect is hardly an auspicious sight.

But, it was the hair splitting difference you mention that I was referring to. And, yes, it is a very hair splitting point, but itnt coincidental that every time spymaster split hairs one way, they would always favour the alleged perpetrator, it was another example of what seemed to me to be his inherent bias (and arrogant presentation thereof). And in know that those kinds of misconceptions are seeing bloody rapists and other abusers off the hook, so it's bloody dangerous. And bloody annoying.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> She couldn't have remembered consenting to sex, because on the three occasions she didn't recall what had happened, she hasn't had sex!



She wouldn't have known any different whether she had or not  . Just as it was with Evans and his mate . She didn't recall that either .


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> She couldn't have remembered consenting to sex, because on the three occasions she didn't recall what had happened, she hasn't had sex!


But if she had she'd probably not have known!


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Well maybe because you dodged them to continue inferring that X was the predator in this case.



Before you can argue that I dodged your posts in order to continue to make an argument I'm not making, you surely need to show what questions I've dodged?


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 16, 2016)

trashpony said:


> I haven't returned to this thread because I don't want to engage with it anymore. I just wanted to make that clear in case anyone was labouring under the misapprehension that I was embarrassed by my posts yesterday. I'm not and I stand by all of them.
> 
> Thank you to the posters who were kind about my rape. It means a huge amount in a world where the default is that a man's word is truth and a woman's is deception.


Personally I don't blame you for not engaging - the thread has taken a somewhat frustrating turn.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yes.



10 out of 10 for honesty.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> "Mr Owens told Mr Ripley of three separate occasions where he and X spent the night together and the next morning X asked if anything sexual had occurred, and a fourth occasion when they had intercourse".
> 
> Similar in 19 which I quoted above.
> 
> It refers to 4 occasions where she had no memory 3 no shags and 1 shag. Why mention the 4th occasion at all otherwise?



It explicitly refers to her having no memory of the first three. It does not say she had no memory of the fourth. Else, why make the distinction between the two groups? It would simply say "Mr Owens told Mr Ripley of four separate occasions where he and X spent the night together and the next morning X asked if anything sexual had occurred..." Albeit it might go on to say that intercourse occurred on the fourth.  

This interpretation is consistent with what was eventually included in the second statement, and referrered to in para 25, where it makes clear that, on that fourth occasion, she didn't question what had happened. Your interpretation of paras 18 and 19 is inconsistent with that understanding, and its inconceivable that, if what you're saying is right i.e. that there was an occasion where they had sex and she forgot, the second statement would have been worded as it was.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> She wouldn't have known any different whether she had or not  . Just as it was with Evans and his mate . She didn't recall that either .





Spymaster said:


> But if she had she'd probably not have known!



You're betraying an agenda, given that the only evidence we have suggests the complete opposite i.e. that on the only occasion we know of where she had consentual sex (the fourth night with Owens), he reports what she says the next morning, and this does not include her having to ask what happened!


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 16, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> Personally I don't blame you for not engaging - the thread has taken a somewhat frustrating turn.


It's been like this from the start


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> - the thread has taken a somewhat frustrating turn.



A not guilty can do this.


----------



## bimble (Oct 16, 2016)

This seems silly now. She did not remember anything about the night. That is all we know. 
It doesn't matter at all whether she had previously had no memory of sex or not. Totally irrelevant surely. Unless you're saying that she only had blackouts on no-sex nights? I don't get what Athos is arguing at all.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> It explicitly refers to her having no memory of the first three. It does not say she had no memory of the fourth. Else, why make the distinction between the two groups? It would simply say "Mr Owens told Mr Ripley of four separate occasions where he and X spent the night together and the next morning X asked if anything sexual had occurred..." Albeit it might go on to say that intercourse occurred on the fourth.  This interpretation is consistent with what was energising included in the statement, and referrered to in para 25, where it makes clear that, on that fourth occasion, she didn't question what had happened. Your interpretation of paras 18 and 19 is inconsistent with that understanding, and its inconceivable that, if what you're saying is right i.e. that there was an occasion where they had sex and she forgot, the second systematic would have been worded as it was.


Yes. You're right. I withdraw that argument.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> You're betraying an agenda, given that the three only evidence we have suggests the complete opposite i.e. that on the only occasion we know of that she had consentual sex (the fourth night with Owens), she did not have to ask what happened!



I've no fucking agenda at all . First time round in particular I'd have sent both of them down . 

Your pulling an assumption from absolutely nowhere  that on the 4 nights she spent with the witness she was under the same level of intoxication on all 4 occasions . That's a very silly assumption to make . 3 of them she demonstrably blacked out and had no idea what happened . Can you demonstrate whether she was even drinking on the occasion she didn't ask ? What her level of drunkenness might have been ? 
If not then all you can surmise is she didn't black out on that occasion . Or that she simply didn't ask like all the other times . The assumption you jump to is designed to fit your own scenario . 

I don't want to say agenda because that's a very loaded word. Not that it stops you chucking it around .


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> A not guilty can do this.


It's not the not guilty verdict at all, it's the continued posts ( and some of yours fall into this category)  arguing the same points over and over without listening to the answers.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

bimble said:


> This seems silly now. She did not remember anything about the night. That is all we know.
> It doesn't matter at all whether she had previously had no memory of sex or not. Totally irrelevant surely. Unless you're saying that she only had blackouts on no-sex nights? I don't get what Athos is arguing at all.



I'm saying that, contrary to what some have claimed here, there's no evidence of her ever having had consentual sex then forgetting it.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Yes. You're right. I withdraw that argument.



Thanks, that's gracious of you. 

But having withdrawn your original arguments about the timing and content of the new evidence, where does that leave your conclusion about its admissibility and probative value.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> I've no fucking agenda at all . First time round in particular I'd have sent both of them down .
> 
> Your pulling an assumption from absolutely nowhere  that on the 4 nights she spent with the witness she was under the same level of intoxication on all 4 occasions . That's a very silly assumption to make . 3 of them she demonstrably blacked out and had no idea what happened . Can you demonstrate whether she was even drinking on the occasion she didn't ask ? What her level of drunkenness might have been ?
> If not then all you can surmise is she didn't black out on that occasion . Or that she simply didn't ask like all the other times . The assumption you jump to is designed to fit your own scenario .
> ...



You are missing the point. I was saying that there is no evidence of her having ever forgotten an episode of consentual sex.  And, Spymaster has now conceded that point.

You still seem to infer, from the fact that she didn't remember what had happened on occasions when she hadn't had sex, that she could have had consensual sex and not recall it. A position for which we have seen no evidence, and which could be at odds with evidence we do have i.e. the only occasion she seems to remember with Owens being the one on which they did have sex.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> I'm saying that, contrary to what some have claimed here, there's no evidence of her ever having had consentual sex then forgetting it.



There's plenty of evidence to suggest she would habitually get in a state were shed have no recollection whether she did or not. As occured in the hotel . And there's reasonable doubt .

 that witnesses was pointing to a pattern of behaviour that jurors would have to consider . It's highly unlikely they'd consider she only took black outs in the company of that witness . The evidence was that this was a normal thing for her to do. Abuse alcohol to a degree were she had no idea what she got up to the night before. It's reasonable for a juror to derive an assumption from the pattern of repeated blacking out while in bed with someone  she had engaged in intercourse on previous occasions and had no recollection of it . Very reasonable.

Otherwise the witness evidence would be completely irrelevant to the case. He wasn't on trial and blacking out with him wasn't the issue . Her blacking out on a semi regular basis was the issue . Your focussing forensically on a narrow aspect when the point of the evidence is establishing a much wider pattern .


----------



## Raheem (Oct 16, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> During her blackouts she had no memory of consenting to sex or not . I think that's whats central here .



It's not what's central, it's what's bleedin' obvious and irrelevant. If anyone has a blackout, they will be left with no memory of consenting to sex, eating a pork pie or climbing the Eiffel Tower.

Let's break it down logically, starting with three uncontested facts. X was sexually active. On the night in question, X blacked out. While blacked out, she had sex with Ched Evans.

Our main question is whether X consented to sex with Ched Evans.

So, if we additionally establish that X had blacked out on a number of other occasions, does this make it more likely that she consented to sex with Ched Evans?

If we establish that X had consented to sex with people other than Ched Evans on a number of other occasions, does this make it more likely that she consented to sex with Ched Evans?

Unless you can answer "yes" to one of those two questions, then this part of the witness testimony does not go to Evans' guilt or innocence and so should not have been found particularly useful by the jury.

The fact that multiple people here of apparently average-or-better intelligence seem to think that this is actually compelling evidence for Evans' innocence is a bit troubling, and a really good illustration of why sexual history evidence is generally better kept away from juries.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> ... where does that leave your conclusion about its admissibility and probative value.


Well it can't be considered as evidence. Perhaps there's an implication that she wouldn't have remembered anyway (due to her not remembering anything on the non-sex nights either) but as it stands it's of no value.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well it can't be considered as evidence. Perhaps there's an implication that she wouldn't have remembered anyway (due to her not remembering anything on the non-sex nights either) but as it stands it's of no value.



Cool. 

We got there in the end.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> There's plenty of evidence to suggest she would habitually get in a state were shed have no recollection whether she did or not. As occured in the hotel . And there's reasonable doubt .
> 
> that witnesses was pointing to a pattern of behaviour that jurors would have to consider . It's highly unlikely they'd consider she only took black outs in the company of that witness . The evidence was that this was a normal thing for her to do. Abuse alcohol to a degree were she had no idea what she got up to the night before. It's reasonable for a juror to derive an assumption from the pattern of repeated blacking out while in bed with someone  she had engaged in intercourse on previous occasions and had no recollection of it . Very reasonable.
> 
> Otherwise the witness evidence would be completely irrelevant to the case. He wasn't on trial and blacking out with him wasn't the issue . Her blacking out on a semi regular basis was the issue . Your focussing forensically on a narrow aspect when the point of the evidence is establishing a much wider pattern .



The point is that establishing a pattern of X not remembering what happened on nights she didn't have sex ought to have no probative value to the question of whether she did consent to sex on another occasion in which she did not remember!


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 16, 2016)

Raheem if it were as simple as 'whilst blacked out X had sex with ched evans' there would not be a thread over 100 pages long on the subject.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> Cool.
> 
> We got there in the end.


Apologies for calling you an idiot!


----------



## Raheem (Oct 16, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> Raheem if it were as simple as 'whilst blacked out X had sex with ched evans' there would be thread over 100 pages long on the subject.



And there is, so what does that tell you?


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 16, 2016)

Raheem said:


> And there is, so what does that tell you?


That your simplistic assumption is wrong.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 16, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> That your simplistic assumption is wrong.



Actually, I think it tells us that there was a typo in your previous comment. But I'm afraid I still don't understand it. X did black out and did have sex with Ched Evans. There's no dispute about either of those things.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> It's not the not guilty verdict at all, it's the continued posts ( and some of yours fall into this category)  arguing the same points over and over without listening to the answers.



Here is a case where without any complaint or evidence of a crime having been committed, police nevertheless take it upon themselves to pursue a very specific line of inquiry,  resulting in what is objectively, extremely thin circumstantial evidence supporting said line of inquiry. All it could ever have suggested was that a serious crime might possibly have taken place. Entirely  self-fulfilling so far.

The all-important next stop ought to have been to establish a prime facie case. But they neglected to do this. Instead in collaboration with the CPS, they proceeded to charge, and eventually jail one of the defendants. And then 5 years later opt for a re-trial after a successful appeal on even thinner (aka zero) evidence. That even now, that a goodish number still believe that this is exactly how Police/CPS should operate in a democracy is frankly alarming.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Apologies for calling you an idiot!



And "fucking stupid"? 

No worries mate; the Mrs has called me worse for wasting a day arguing with you!


----------



## Raheem (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> The all-important next stop ought to have been to establish a prime facie case. But they neglected to do this. Instead in collaboration with the CPS, they proceeded to charge, and eventually jail one of the defendants.



No they didn't. A judge and jury did that last bit.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Here is a case where without any complaint or evidence of a crime having been committed, police nevertheless take it upon themselves to pursue a very specific line of inquiry,  resulting in what is objectively, extremely thin circumstantial evidence supporting said line of inquiry. All it could ever have suggested was that a serious crime might possibly have taken place. Entirely  self-fulfilling so far.
> 
> The all-important next stop ought to have been to establish a prime facie case. But they neglected to do this. Instead in collaboration with the CPS, they proceeded to charge, and eventually jail one of the defendants. And then 5 years later opt for a re-trial after a successful appeal on even thinner (aka zero) evidence. That even now, that a goodish number still believe that this is exactly how Police/CPS should operate in a democracy is frankly alarming.



I was going to go through this line by line, but there are so many errors and assumptions that I lost heart.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

Raheem said:


> It's not what's central, it's what's bleedin' obvious and irrelevant. If anyone has a blackout, they will be left with no memory of consenting to sex, eating a pork pie or climbing the Eiffel Tower.
> 
> Let's break it down logically, starting with three uncontested facts. X was sexually active. On the night in question, X blacked out. While blacked out, she had sex with Ched Evans.
> 
> ...



I don't think it's compelling evidence one way or another . Im far from convinced even that  Evans conviction should have been quashed . And also of the opinion if hes guilty then so was his coaccused .What I do believe though is that testimony regarding frequent black outs introduced reasonable doubt . As did testimony shed had sex with at least one stranger , which was central to undermining the CPS case she couldnt have consented because Evans was a stranger . So was the other scumbag .

X has no recollection as to whether or not she consented to sex with Evans . If she said she didn't I'd believe her .The series of questions you've posted are also wrong because they're subjective.  Nobody has any idea whether or not she did, including herself . And it's a simple fact people have sex with other people when drunk they normally wouldn't consider as partners while sober. I've wished I could gnaw my arm off more than once .  Your questions ask us to speculate on a likelihood that simply can't be quantified . 

The question put to a jury was not your question. The question put was did Ched Evans have a reasonable belief X was capable of giving consent . Evans , by hook or by crook, has convinced a jury he had that belief . That's the question as far as the trials concerned and the laws concerned . Not the ones you put .


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Raheem said:


> No they didn't. A judge and jury did that last bit.



As a result of the poisoned package presented to the court by the police and CPS.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 16, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Actually, I think it tells us that there was a typo in your previous comment. But I'm afraid I still don't understand it. X did black out and did have sex with Ched Evans. There's no dispute about either of those things.


There was a typo and I corrected it.

I take issue with 'had sex with' as it implies consent. His behaviour by his own admission was that he did not speak to her before, during or after, therefore how could she have reasonably consented to having sex with him?

All this case demonstrates that if a woman agrees to have sex with a man, and at some point his friend appears then she apparently has also agreed to having sex with him as well.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> I was going to go through this line by line, but there are so many errors and assumptions that I lost heart.



Yes we've been through that. The fact that you still insist both are guilty is good enough for me. I for one have moved on as they say.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> The point is that establishing a pattern of X not remembering what happened on nights she didn't have sex ought to have no probative value to the question of whether she did consent to sex on another occasion in which she did not remember!



Please explain why there'd be a regular doubt in her mind whether she had sex or not ? Do you not agree she thought it possible on a number of occasions shed had sex but blacked out afterwards and couldn't remember ?


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> ... As did testimony shed had sex with at least one stranger , which was central to undermining the CPS case she couldnt have consented because Evans was a stranger . So was the other scumbag.



Who gave evidence of that? 



Casually Red said:


> ...  The question put to a jury was not your question. The question put was did Ched Evans have a reasonable belief X was capable of giving consent....



This is a misstatement of the relevant law.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Yes we've been through that. The fact that you still insist both are guilty is good enough for me. I for one have moved on as they say.



I would be very foolish to say that they are guilty on a public forum. What I said is that I believe that, had I been in the jury, I'd have returned a guilty verdict.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> There was a typo and I corrected it.
> 
> I take issue with 'had sex with' as it implies consent. His behaviour by his own admission was that he did not speak to her before, during or after, therefore how could she have reasonably consented to having sex with him?
> 
> All this case demonstrates that if a woman agrees to have sex with a man, and at some point his friend appears then she apparently has also agreed to having sex with him as well.



He entered the room the door banged behind him, they both looked at him. His mate asked her if Evans could join in. She assented.So he did.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> There was a typo and I corrected it.
> 
> I take issue with 'had sex with' as it implies consent. His behaviour by his own admission was that he did not speak to her before, during or after, therefore how could she have reasonably consented to having sex with him?
> 
> All this case demonstrates that if a woman agrees to have sex with a man, and at some point his friend appears then she apparently has also agreed to having sex with him as well.



I'll point out here when referring to sexual contact between Evans and X I put inverted commas around " having sex " for that very reason. Evans defence in this case was his co accused put the question to her and she consented .


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> He entered the room the door banged behind him, they both looked at him. His mate asked her if Evans could join in. She assented.So he did.



Oh you were there?


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Please explain why there'd be a regular doubt in her mind whether she had sex or not ? Do you not agree she thought it possible on a number of occasions shed had sex but blacked out afterwards and couldn't remember ?


Nobody gave evidence that she ever had doubts about whether she'd had sex. At its highest i.e. according to what Owens is said to have told Ripley, she would ask whether anything sexual had happened (which could be a lot less than full sex), and what the statement seems to say is even less strong i.e. that she'd ask the more herbal question of what happened.

Why do you keep misrepresenting the evidence?


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> He entered the room the door banged behind him, they both looked at him. His mate asked her if Evans could join in. She assented.So he did.



Clayton, is that you?


----------



## 1%er (Oct 16, 2016)

What everyone here can be clear about is that we don't know the totality of the evidence in the 2nd trial in which a not guilty verdict was returned by the jury. People can argue about the document that details the reason for granting the appeal, but that is not all the evidence from the trial.

A jury sat through the 2nd trial in which they heard the evidence from both parties, second guessing their verdict is pointless as you don't know all the evidence that was placed before them.

Here on urban we have the court of prejudice, speculation and very little evidence, in the 2nd trial the jury had the evidence from both sides and came to a judgement based on the facts put to them.

You can argue about it until your fingers become stubs, but unless and until the trial transcript is published you will not have the full picture in which you can then come to an informed opinion.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

1%er said:


> What everyone here can be clear about is that we don't know the totality of the evidence in the 2nd trial in which a not guilty verdict was returned by the jury. People can argue about the document that details the reason for granting the appeal, but that is not all the evidence from the trial.
> 
> A jury sat through the 2nd trial in which they heard the evidence from both parties, second guessing their verdict is pointless as you don't know all the evidence that was placed before them.
> 
> ...


You can come to an opinion that the original verdict shouldn't have been quashed.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> You can come to an opinion that the original verdict shouldn't have been quashed.


Yes you can based on the little evidence you have and if you believe you know more about the law than the people who granted the appeal.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

1%er said:


> Yes you can based on the little evidence you have and if you believe you know more about the law than the people who let the appeal go forward.



Based on the reasoning of the appeal decision, which was set out at length.

And, for the record, in my past life I took cases to the House of Lords (as it was then), so the idea that I can't challenge the Court of Appeal's analysis is flawed.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> Based on the reasoning of the appeal decision, which was set out at length.


Look I'm not going to bother having a argument with you, you clearly believe you know more than the people who granted the appeal, but delusions of grandeur are as common on urban as red buses are in London.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

1%er said:


> Look I'm not going to bother having a argument with you, you clearly believe you know more than the people who granted the appeal, but delusions of grandeur are as common on urban as red buses are in London.


See what I edited in to my last post (which crossed with your reply).


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> Nobody gave evidence that she did not remember if she'd had sex. At its highest i.e. according to what Owens is said to have told Ripley, she would ask whether anything sexual had happened (which could be a lot less than full sex), and what the statement seems to say is even less strong i.e. that she'd ask the more herbal question of what happened.
> 
> Why do you keep misrepresenting the evidence?



That's utter bollocks. It states clearly in the transcript x is alleged by Owens to have propositioned him on 3 occasions while both were drinking and offered him a " good time " if he took her home . It clearly states she asked after those occasions whether " sexual intercourse " had taken place . There's no doubt at all that's what it says . Page 4 , paragraph 19 .

Why are you completely misrepresenting me when the evidence very clearly states otherwise ?

And wtf is " herbal " ?


----------



## Raheem (Oct 16, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> What I do believe though is that testimony regarding frequent black outs introduced reasonable doubt . As did testimony shed had sex with at least one stranger.



But you have no basis for thinking either of these things. Someone having frequent blackouts doesn't having any bearing on the question of whether or not they consented to sex on a particular occasion. The fact that she had sex with a stranger on another occasion also has no bearing on whether she consented to sex on the night in question. Or, if you prefer, neither thing has a bearing on whether Evans would have had a reasonable belief that she had consented. How could his belief be affected by things he had no knowledge of?

You seem to me to be falling into the trap of trying to make predictions about how X might have behaved on the night in question based on what you can glean about her character. Which is a mistake, because you actually have very little information about her.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Oh you were there?



No, but that is rather the point nonetheless. There were only three people in the room. Two, claim the sex that resulted was consensual. The third claims not to remember. Unless she was underage; it was her room and they had no reason to be in it, or there was evidence she had not entered the room willingly, the investigation should have stopped there. Reprehensible in many eyes, but it is simply impossible to show evidence of criminal behavior or intent.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> That's utter bollocks. It states clearly in the transcript x is alleged by Owens to have propositioned him on 3 occasions while both were drinking and offered him a " good time " if he took her home . It clearly states she asked after those occasions whether " sexual intercourse " had taken place . There's no doubt at all that's what it says . Page 4 , paragraph 19 .
> 
> Why are you completely misrepresenting me when the evidence very clearly states otherwise ?
> 
> And wtf is " herbal " ?


Paras 18 and 19 are contradictory in this regard. Para 23 seems to reflect his final position. It accords with my interpretation, above.

Herbal was general - autocorrect!


----------



## Poot (Oct 16, 2016)

This thread is really quite insulting in places. Anyone who thinks consent has anything to do with who was in whose hotel room and who went in "willingly" and "unaided" is quite welcome to fuck off.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Poot said:


> This thread is really quite insulting in places. Anyone who thinks consent has anything to do with who was in whose hotel room and who went in "willingly" and "unaided" is quite welcome to fuck off.


 The only people who brought up the matter of 'consent' were the police. _Not_ the alleged victim. It was central to their case that she was incapable of giving 'consent'. Should they fuck off as well?


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> Paras 18 and 19 are contradictory in this regard. Para 23 seems to reflect his final position. It accords with my interpretation, above.
> 
> Herbal was general - autocorrect!



It's not contradictory at all . You're just selectively ..and pretty desperately..twisting the words that suit you and completely ignoring the ones that don't. Whilst simultaneously accusing me of misrepresenting stuff . Your pulling it out of thin air that because paragraphs 18 and 19 specifically refer to sexual intercourse and paragraph 24 on a later statement refers to her asking what happened there's some difference. That's bollocks .

It seems your interpreting on a highly Jesuitical basis simply as suits yourself. What you're outlining as a difference between the 2 is utter nonsense . No reasonable person would take the position your taking on those paragraphs , much less completely ignore because it doesn't suit . Your just bent on an Internet win at all costs . Tiresome.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> The only people who brought up the matter of 'consent' were the police. _Not_ the alleged victim. It was central to their case that she was incapable of giving 'consent'. Should they fuck off as well?


She's not the ALLEGED victim, something still happened to her. Ffs.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> The only people who brought up the matter of 'consent' were the police. _Not_ the alleged victim. It was central to their case that she was incapable of giving 'consent'. Should they fuck off as well?


"Consent"


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> It's not contradictory at all . You're just selectively ..and pretty desperately..twisting the words that suit you and completely ignoring the ones that don't. Whilst simultaneously accusing me of misrepresenting stuff . Your pulling it out of thin air that because paragraphs 18 and 19 specifically refer to sexual intercourse and paragraph 24 on a later statement refers to her asking what happened there's some difference. That's bollocks .
> 
> It seems your interpreting on a highly Jesuitical basis simply as suits yourself. What you're outlining as a difference between the 2 is utter nonsense . No reasonable person would take the position your taking on those paragraphs , much less completely ignore because it doesn't suit . Your just bent on an Internet win at all costs . Tiresome.



Bollocks.

Anyway, any answer to my question in post #3471?


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> Bollocks.
> 
> Anyway, any answer to my question in post #3471?



Bollocks nothing . I can see what you're at a mile off . Paragraphs 18 and 19 are in no manner contradicted by 24 ! Not in the slightest . It means the very same thing to any reasonable person . I misrepresented fuck all in that regard.

I'll also point out that others on this thread had the character and good grace to apologise to you when they got it wrong. Plainly something that's lacking in yourself .


----------



## Poot (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> The only people who brought up the matter of 'consent' were the police. _Not_ the alleged victim. It was central to their case that she was incapable of giving 'consent'. Should they fuck off as well?


If she was incapable of giving consent to sex, and please note the lack of quotation marks, I don't really understand why _how she got into the room_ is relevant. But then I confess I have failed to see the relevance of much of what has been produced as evidence.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Bollocks nothing . I can see what you're at a mile off . Paragraphs 18 and 19 are in no manner contradicted by 24 . It means the very same thing to any reasonable person . I misrepresented fuck all in that regard.
> 
> I'll also point out that others on this thread had the character and good grace to apologise to you when they got it wrong. Plainly lacking in yourself .



You interpret it differently, that's fine.

When I'm wrong, I will apologise, don't worry about that.

Anyway, about that question.  The one where you're mask slipped. Any reply?


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> When it happens, I will, don't worry about that.
> 
> Anyway, about that question.  The one where you're mask slipped.



What fucking mask ?

Are you having a big huff now because somebody contradicted you ? Clever clogs

Looks very like it

Eta

And I won't worry about it in the slightest. You deliberately got it wrong as a cunts trick while trying to make me out as a liar .


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> What fucking mask ?
> 
> Are you having a big huff now because somebody contradicted you ? Clever clogs
> 
> Looks very like it



Is that a 'no', then?

Huff, lol.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

Yup.

Huff . Umbrage . High dudgeon .


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Yup.
> 
> Huff . Umbrage . High dudgeon .



Wow, you think disagreeing with you means that much to me?   I'd be more pissed off if I was on the same side of an argument as you.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Anyway where's this testimony of her sleeping with strangers?


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> Anyway where's this testimony of her sleeping with strangers?



Statements were made to that effect by 3 different witnesses . They weren't called . One had sex with her the next day , not right away and that meant he wasn't considered a stranger .
The decision to bring the case by the CPs was partially based on an insistence by x in her statement she wouldn't consent to sex with a stranger . When that doesn't seem to be the case at all. 

I wasn't totally correct in my reading of it first time round , but 3 men came forward to give evidence they'd been strangers to her and shed consented to intercourse. Despite her original assertion shed never consent to that. Had she not stated that the case mightn't have gone to trial at all .


----------



## Poot (Oct 16, 2016)

Oh good. We're still ploughing through her previous sexual encounters in spite of the recent not guilty verdict.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> Wow, you think disagreeing with you means that much to me?   I'd be more pissed off if I was on the same side of an argument as you.



You're not merely disagreeing with me, youre demonstrably telling deliberate lies. And you thought you were too superior and I was too thick to spot it and point it out . that's why your huffing .
Because if a lowly uneducated thicko like me can catch you doing it you must be a pretty crap lawyer . Unlike what you crack on to be .

I'd take a huff too.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> You're not merely disagreeing with me, youre demonstrably telling deliberate lies. And you thought you were too superior and I was too thick to spot it and point it out . that's why your huffing .
> Because if a lowly uneducated thicko like me can catch you doing it you must be a pretty crap lawyer . Unlike what you crack on to be .
> 
> I'd take a huff too.



You've done no such thing, though.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> No, but that is rather the point nonetheless. There were only three people in the room. Two, claim the sex that resulted was consensual. The third claims not to remember. Unless she was underage; it was her room and they had no reason to be in it, or there was evidence she had not entered the room willingly, the investigation should have stopped there. Reprehensible in many eyes, but it is simply impossible to show evidence of criminal behavior or intent.




This only works if they all went there together. X went there with M. Even so, she could have decided not to have sex with him regardless of her willingness to go to the hotel with him if she had wanted to and that would be okay.

She is known to have been intoxicated (later wondering if she had been spiked) and vulnerable by the observations of the receptionist and her saying 'You won't leave me will you?' (or words to that effect)...I think to myself when have I ever said that? Truth is IMO/E that none of us would unless we were worse for wear/uneasy/vulnerable. She didn't even know the whereabouts of her bag/keys/phone/money etc...all the things that keep us safe.


M then sent a text 'i've got a girl'. Did X know about that text do you think? Perhaps she was sitting there saying 'Oh Ched Evans, yes please!' 

Is that the way you would speak about women you may hook up with? When is the last time you hooked up with anyone and sent a mate of yours a text like that? What does that text say about their attitudes and habits?  Would any of you mates rush over to join in?

Apparently and posted here by you as some kind of be all to end all facts,  the door banged, they both looked up, she consented to sex with CE; too fucking convenient IMO...Personally I doubt she knew he was there or had the ability to deal with the fact a third party had entered the room.

M left and commented to the receptionist about her welfare. He fucking knew it was dodgey. She was probably unconscious at that point. CE left by the fire exit. The behaviour of people that did nothing wrong? I won't even fast forward to the new evidence and the reward.

You posted earlier that perhaps X got Ched instead of him getting her. I think you showed your hand with that statement.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

Poot said:


> Oh good. We're still ploughing through her previous sexual encounters in spite of the recent not guilty verdict.



Tell him to put his ego to one side and stop playing rumpole of the fucking bailey . It would have been dropped long ago otherwise.

Fuck it I'm done with this


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> I wasn't totally correct in my reading of it first time round...




No, you weren't.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

Athos said:


> No, you weren't.



And you decided to use the opportunity to look clever and  superior on the back of this rather than simply correct a partially wrong  position with facts. But then again you've an allergy to them that comes and goes.


----------



## Athos (Oct 16, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> And you decided to use the opportunity to look clever and  superior on the back of this rather than simply correct a partially wrong  position with facts. But then again you've an allergy to them that comes and goes.



Another thing you're wrong about.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 16, 2016)

Nah


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> You posted earlier that perhaps X got Ched instead of him getting her. I think you showed your hand with that statement.



No I didn't. My memory of it first time round that it was her that approached his mate not the other way round as the prosecution originally had it.  Luckily for him this was easily proved by CTTV that showed their original encounter. Did the police bury it or simply didn't bother to check? Incompetence or otherwise, it as good as demolished the case against Evan's co-accused that it was him that had acted in a predatory manner.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 16, 2016)

1%er said:


> What everyone here can be clear about is that we don't know the totality of the evidence in the 2nd trial in which a not guilty verdict was returned by the jury. People can argue about the document that details the reason for granting the appeal, but that is not all the evidence from the trial.
> 
> A jury sat through the 2nd trial in which they heard the evidence from both parties, second guessing their verdict is pointless as you don't know all the evidence that was placed before them.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I mean courts are these wonderful amazing places that never make a moronic decision, where all the people who enter them suddenly become free from the prejudices they may have, where your wealth has no effect on the outcome of the trial at all.

What absolute fucking tosh, there are any number of cases that are quite clear travesty's of justice. The idea that people should simply accept this verdict when everyone knows that the convictions in rape cases is appalling is not just stupid it's insulting to victims.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> No, but that is rather the point nonetheless. There were only three people in the room. Two, claim the sex that resulted was consensual. The third claims not to remember. *Unless she was underage; it was her room and they had no reason to be in it, or there was evidence she had not entered the room willingly, the investigation should have stopped there. *Reprehensible in many eyes, but it is simply impossible to show evidence of criminal behavior or intent.


WTF? How do you make that out?


----------



## 1%er (Oct 16, 2016)

redsquirrel said:


> Yeah, I mean courts are these wonderful amazing places that never make a moronic decision, where all the people who enter them suddenly become free from the prejudices they may have, where your wealth has no effect on the outcome of the trial at all.
> 
> What absolute fucking tosh, there are any number of cases that are quite clear travesty's of justice. The idea that people should simply accept this verdict when everyone knows that the convictions in rape cases is appalling is not just stupid it's insulting to victims.


Ah red [your all fucking liberals and I'm a revolutionary communist] squirrel has popped up and misunderstood a post as usual, now there's a surprised 

Just to help you out a little, my post was about the FACTS, that the people arguing here are arguing from a point of ignorance as they don't know what the facts are.

Now jog along back to the last century where your politics belongs and pick an argument with yourself in a phone-box as I couldn't give a fuck about your stupid misinterpretation of my post   Bye Bye


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> WTF? How do you make that out?


What is it you exactly you are taking issue with?


----------



## Poot (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> What is it you exactly you are taking issue with?


Presumably the bit in bold. I am also interested.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> What is it you exactly you are taking issue with?


All of it, but esp the bit in bold. That's why I put it in bold.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

_'She isn't a minor, , they didn't break in, lighten up everyone!'_

Or some such. 

Because, as an adult female, willingly going into a room with one man means....whatever he wants it to and that includes his mates and what they want?


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 16, 2016)

Also, Joe Reilly just because a woman willingly enters a room it doesn't mean she's also consenting to anything else at all. Whether it's her hotel room or not.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 16, 2016)

And then some people are surprised at the low rates of a) sex crime reporting and b) subsequent conviction rates.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 16, 2016)

Oh ffs why have I just read the last 10 pages of this absolute shitfest?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2016)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Oh ffs why have I just read the last 10 pages of this absolute shitfest?


((((agent sparrow)))) 

Here, have some mind bleach


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> _'She isn't a minor, , they didn't break in, lighten up everyone!'_
> 
> Or some such.
> 
> Because, as an adult female, willingly going into a room with one man means....whatever he wants it to and that includes his mates and what they want?



Broadly speaking that was indeed the basic case for the prosecution. But the suggestion it might have gone down like this wasn't made by the one person who was in a position to do so. It was was a construct by the police. And they arrived at their conclusion without any input from her at all. _Any_ of that bother any of you truth-seekers?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Broadly speaking that was indeed the basic case for the prosecution. But the suggestion it might have gone down like this wasn't made by the one person who was in a position to do so. It was was a construct by the police. And they arrived at their conclusion without any input from her at all. _Any_ of that bother any of you truth-seekers?




Does it bother you that after questioning CE and M about what the had happened that night specifically in relation to X's lost bag they thought, have these scumbags raped this lass?

The things they admitted to are that dodgy.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Broadly speaking that was indeed the basic case for the prosecution. But the suggestion it might have gone down like this wasn't made by the one person who was in a position to do so. It was was a construct by the police. And they arrived at their conclusion without any input from her at all. _Any_ of that bother any of you truth-seekers?


no, why would it? she had no memory of it.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Broadly speaking that was indeed the basic case for the prosecution. But the suggestion it might have gone down like this wasn't made by the one person who was in a position to do so. It was was a construct by the police. And they arrived at their conclusion without any input from her at all. _Any_ of that bother any of you truth-seekers?



So, Joe, would it be your view that if the victim doesn't remember anything the police should just butt out? In rape-drug cases, for example?


----------



## Raheem (Oct 16, 2016)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Oh ffs why have I just read the last 10 pages of this absolute shitfest?



Because otherwise you'd have had no legitimate right to make it one post longer.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Does it bother you that after questioning CE and M about what the had happened that night specifically in relation to X's lost bag they thought, have these scumbags raped this lass?



Might have. The problem with coppers following hunches instead of the evidence is that they then start to tailor the case to meet the needs of the hunch. A big feature in nearly all miscarriage of justice.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> no, why would it? she had no memory of it.



Yeah, but the problem was there was no 'it'.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Yeah, but the problem was there was no 'it'.


yes there was. that's not in doubt.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Raheem said:


> So, Joe, would it be your view that if the victim doesn't remember anything the police should just butt out? In rape-drug cases, for example?



_If_ there's a rape...then it's their duty to pursue it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> _If_ there's a rape...then it's their duty to pursue it.


which they did


----------



## Raheem (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> _If_ there's a rape...then it's their duty to pursue it.



But they can't decide that, can they? It's for the courts. Their job is to look for evidence. Do you mean they should pursue it if there's some  reason to suspect a rape?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> which they did



...yes they pursued it even when it didn't happen like they _imagined_ it did.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> ...yes they pursued it even when it didn't happen like they _imagined_ it did.


there was evidence she'd been raped, so they pursued it. the evidence was strong enough for the CPS to prosecute and strong enough for a jury to convict.

Are you going to answer the question I asked you?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> there was evidence she'd been raped, so they pursued it. the evidence was strong enough for the CPS to prosecute and strong enough for a jury to convict.


What page are you on?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Raheem said:


> But they can't decide that, can they? It's for the courts. Their job is to look for evidence. Do you mean they should pursue it if there's some  reason to suspect a rape?



'Suspecting' a rape ought not to be the basis for laying charges unless it can be backed up. Your not really doing anyone any favors least of the alleged victim.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> What page are you on?


118. I don't think the second trial is a miscarriage of justice. Now answer the question


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> 'Suspecting' a rape ought not to be the basis for laying charges unless it can be backed up. Your not really doing anyone any favors least of the alleged victim.


it was backed up


----------



## Raheem (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Suspecting a rape ought not to be the basis for laying charges unless it can be backed up. Your not really doing anyone any favors.



We were talking about the circumstances under which the police should pursue an investigation, rather than bringing charges.

So, you'd agree that it's OK for them to start an investigation before they are 100% certain that a crime has been committed? Even if the possible victim doesn't remember anything?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> it was backed up


 Ultimately the jury decided it was all a crock of shit. Acquitted after just a couple of hours.


----------



## albionism (Oct 16, 2016)

It seems Ched Evans is now going on a talking tour
about alcohol and consent. Must have got that idea
from Brock Turner.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> 118. I don't think the second trial is a miscarriage of justice.



Lol that was after his career was destroyed and he had been sentenced to a 5 year term. The re-trial was _his_ attempt, to remedy the original miscarriage.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Lol that was after his career was destroyed and he had been sentenced to a 5 year term. The re-trial was _his_ attempt, to remedy the original miscarriage.


this has been gone over time and time again. now answer the question


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Raheem said:


> We were talking about the circumstances under which the police should pursue an investigation, rather than bringing charges.
> 
> So, you'd agree that it's OK for them to start an investigation before they are 100% certain that a crime has been committed? Even if the possible victim doesn't remember anything?



You need to remember how this all started? 
X: 'I want to report a stolen bag'. Police: 'Never mind the bag, we believe you were probably raped. Here is what _we_ think happened.'


----------



## Raheem (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> You need to remember how this all started?
> X: 'I want to report a stolen bag'. Police: 'Never mind the bag, we believe you were probably raped. Here is what _we_ think happened.'



That's not an answer to the question I asked.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> this has been gone over time and time again. now answer the question



The facts bore you don't they? So remind me of your killer question again.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 16, 2016)

Raheem said:


> So, you'd agree that it's OK for them to start an investigation before they are 100% certain that a crime has been committed? Even if the possible victim doesn't remember anything?


 They should always follow the evidence. But if there is no evidence...and they investigate anyway, then automatically they have skin in the game, which is when the whole thing can quickly morph into something else.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> The facts bore you don't they? So remind me of your killer question again.


Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison
You seem to think that the woman wasn't raped cos she went into the hotel room voluntarily. Which is pretty fucking offensive, so you should back it up


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> They should always follow the evidence. But if there is no evidence...and they investigate anyway, then automatically they have skin in the game, which is when the whole thing can quickly morph into something else.


why do you keep saying there was no evidence? there was a lot of it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> You need to remember how this all started?
> X: 'I want to report a stolen bag'. Police: 'Never mind the bag, we believe you were probably raped. Here is what _we_ think happened.'



Do you really think that's how it went?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Ultimately the jury decided it was all a crock of shit. Acquitted after just a couple of hours.


This 'crock of shit' carried on over two trials, the first one he was found guilty, the second acquitted. What was different about the 2nd trial?


----------



## Raheem (Oct 16, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> They should always follow the evidence. But if there is no evidence...and they investigate anyway, then automatically they have skin in the game, which is when the whole thing can quickly morph into something else.



You're still not answering my question, which was a really simple yes/no one. And you're also not making much sense. If there's no evidence, then there's obviously nothing to investigate. They can't interview no-one or dust a knife they haven't found for fingerprints.

So, in a case where the police have a possible victim who doesn't remember anything but they believe a crime may have been committed, is it OK for them to begin an investigation?


----------



## bemused (Oct 17, 2016)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Oh ffs why have I just read the last 10 pages of this absolute shitfest?



This thread is the third rail of urban.


----------



## Poot (Oct 17, 2016)

Please answer Orang Utan's question, Joe Reilly.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Raheem said:


> You're still not answering my question, which was a really simple yes/no one. And you're also not making much sense. If there's no evidence, then there's obviously nothing to investigate. They can't interview no-one or dust a knife they haven't found for fingerprints.
> 
> So, in a case where the police have a possible victim who doesn't remember anything but they believe a crime may have been committed, is it OK for them to begin an investigation?


You're talking about a situation where disabling drugs have been surreptitiously administered and presumably found in someone's system who then has no recollection of having sex. 

That's very very different to what's happened here.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> She's not the ALLEGED victim, something still happened to her. Ffs.


Alleged is now fair. A jury has found that there was no rape, ergo no rape victim.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Oct 17, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Statements were made to that effect by 3 different witnesses . They weren't called . One had sex with her the next day , not right away and that meant he wasn't considered a stranger .
> The decision to bring the case by the CPs was partially based on an insistence by x in her statement she wouldn't consent to sex with a stranger . When that doesn't seem to be the case at all.
> 
> I wasn't totally correct in my reading of it first time round , but 3 men came forward to give evidence they'd been strangers to her and shed consented to intercourse. Despite her original assertion shed never consent to that. Had she not stated that the case mightn't have gone to trial at all .


Just rereading the thread and i'm livid about this.
It seems that you are introducing evidence on here about x's sexual history which was not aired at either trial or in the appeal papers (the three witnesses in the appeal papers are a man who'd known her for 13 years (ie since she was at primary school), his mum, and a man who 'd initially met her on facebook).  The part of x's statement when she says she wouldn't consent to sex with a stranger is mentioned briefly in the appeal papers but was not used in either trial.  Its irrelevant anyway.
Where are you getting this info from? - from misogynists on twitter who are continuing to harrass and threaten this woman? - from the ched evans website? or from your own fevered imagination?.
 Its disgusting enough that a woman had her sexual history interrogated in a rape trial.  And shit that people on here are still analysing it and discussing it still.  But trying to talk about aspects of her supposed sexual history which were not introduced at trial is absolutely fucking out of order.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

crossthebreeze said:


> And shit that people on here are still analysing it and discussing it still.


Well, in fairness, it's going to get analysed on here, and in fine detail. That's what happens. There are people who disagree with the case being brought in the first place, others that think it should've been overturned at the 1st appeal, and still more that agree that the new evidence was correctly allowed. Then you have all the people in between them and those that disagree with them, and this is a very important subject.

I stopped posting last night to have a think if I'd got this wrong but overall I don't believe I have. Others are vehement that they are right and nothing less than a second conviction would have made them happy. I think generally speaking the differences between the two groups are probably intractable, but it's hugely unfair for the second group to be accusing the first of rape apology and other shit.


----------



## crossthebreeze (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well, in fairness, it's going to get analysed on here, and in fine detail. That's what happens. There are people who disagree with the case being brought in the first place, others that think it should've been overturned at the 1st appeal, and still more that agree that the new evidence was correctly allowed. Then you have all the people in between them and those that disagree with them, and this is a very important subject.
> 
> I stopped posting last night to have a think if I'd got this wrong but overall I don't believe I have. Others are vehement that they are right and nothing less than a second conviction would have made them happy. I think generally speaking the differences between the two groups are probably intractable, but it's hugely unfair for the second group to be accusing the first of rape apology and other shit.


It might be inevitable (and i'm a hypocrite because i've been discussing it too), but its still shit for x that it will be happening everywhere even in spaces where she isn't being directly threatened.
And the only person i'm calling anything here is Casually Red, who is doing something very specific which you haven't done! (though i think there's posts by others which are also troubling but not out of order in the same way).


----------



## likesfish (Oct 17, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Do you really think that's how it went?




Police get told a woman wakes up naked in a hotel room and can't remember how she got there..


The defences new evidence was the woman had sex  doggy style with men after a night out not threesomes or with a man she'd never talked to or seen .

Why the  fuck wasn't cheds sexual history brought up


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I stopped posting last night to have a think if I'd got this wrong but overall I don't believe I have.




Given your position yesterday was based on your understanding of the timing and content of the new evidence, and given that you eventually conceded you had been wrong about both, I'm at a loss as to why you still think your overall conclusion was right. 

Can you see how those circumstances give the impression that you're determined to take a particular side, no matter what?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> Given your position yesterday was based on your understanding of the timing and content of the new evidence, and given that you eventually conceded you had been wrong about both, I'm at a loss as to why you still think your overall conclusion was right.


Well because that was only a part of my position. Even removing it, there is still the argument that LBJ and Joe Reilly have been making about the paucity of real evidence; the fact that the evidence that was allowed at the second trial convinced a jury to unanimously acquit him extremely quickly; and I still question whether 2 men have perjured themselves for money. So I think there is potentially an argument that the case shouldn't have been brought, as well as that on the accumulative evidence presented, I don't think I could say that he was guilty of rape _beyond a reasonable doubt.
_
However, if she had said or indicated that she was raped, it would be game over.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2016)

likesfish said:


> Why the  fuck wasn't cheds sexual history brought up


ask the prosecution. or Athos.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well because that was only a part of my position. Even removing it, there is still the argument that LBJ and Joe Reilly have been making about the paucity of real evidence, the fact that the evidence that was allowed at the second trial convinced a jury to unanimously acquit him, and I still question whether 2 men have perjured themselves for money. So I think there is potentially an argument that the case shouldn't have been brought, as well as that on the accumulative evidence presented, I don't think I could say that he was guilty of rape _beyond a reasonable doubt.
> _
> However, if she could had said or even indicated that she was raped, it would be game over.



He wasn't acquitted because of the paucity of evidence. As we saw from the first trial, there was sufficient evidence to convict. Rather, he was acquitted because of the new evidence. You seem determined to mischaracterise any objection to that evidence as being founded solely on the basis of perjury for financial reward, conveniently glossing over very serious issues about the proper application of s.41 and the limited probative value such testimony should have. 

But, for whatever reason, you've made up your mind, so I guess there's not a lot of point going through it all again.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> ask the prosecution. or Athos.



Because it's irrelevant. The question isn't why his wasn't, but why hers was.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> He wasn't acquitted because of the paucity of evidence.


Of course not. The paucity of evidence goes to whether or not the first trial should have been brought at all, not whether he should have been acquitted in the second.


> As we saw from the first trial, there was sufficient evidence to convict.


Well we can see that he was convicted. The arguments that that littlebabyjesus  and Joe Reilly have put, although searingly unpopular on these boards, are not entirely without merit. No point in rehashing those all over again though.


> Rather, he was acquitted because of the new evidence. You seem determined to mischaracterise any objection to that evidence as being founded solely on the basis of perjury for financial reward, conveniently glossing over very serious issues about the proper application of s.41 and the limited probative value such testimony should have.


Again, this is only a part of my position. Overall I don't believe that there's enough evidence that a rape was committed to safely convict him.


> But, for whatever reason, you've made up your mind, so I guess there's not a lot of point going through it all again.


Well I've made it up for the above reasons after giving the matter considerable thought. I'm still open to changing it but there's nothing in the recent argument here that makes me inclined to do so.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 17, 2016)

Wilf said:


> This 'crock of shit' carried on over two trials, the first one he was found guilty, the second acquitted. What was different about the 2nd trial?


50k


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Of course not. The paucity of evidence goes to whether or not the first trial should have been brought at all, not whether he should have been acquitted in the second.
> 
> Well we can see that he was convicted. The arguments that that Littlebabyjesus and Joe Reilly have put, although searingly unpopular on these boards, are not entirely without merit. No point in rehashing those all over again though.
> 
> ...



The CPS's decisions to prosecute turn on whether or not there's a realistic prospect of conviction, and whether it's in the public interest. I'm assuming you accept it's in the public interest to attempt to prosecute alleged rapists. So, given the first trial resulted in a conviction, its bizarre to suggest the decision to prosecute in that instance was a poor one. To hold such a logic-defying position can only be indicative of a particular agenda.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> The CPS's decisions to prosecute turn on whether or not there's a realistic prospect of conviction, and whether it's in the public interest. I'm assuming you accept it's in the public interest to attempt to prosecute alleged rapists. So, given the first trial resulted in a conviction, its bizarre to suggest the decision to prosecute in that instance was a poor one.


The extension of the position is that the jury got it wrong in the first trial. Is that not possible? Half the board is arguing that they got it wrong in the second.

Please don't suggest again that I have an agenda. I respected you on this, and have reconsidered my position after our exchange yesterday with a view to changing it. I have no agenda, just a sense of fairness. If Evans had been convicted of being a total bastard I'd be fully behind it. I just can't say that I completely believe he's guilty of rape.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The extension of the position is that the jury got it wrong in the first trial. Is that not possible? Half the board is arguing that they got it wrong in the second.
> 
> Please don't suggest again that I have an agenda. I respected you on this, and have reconsidered my position after our exchange yesterday with a view to changing it. I have no agenda, just a sense of fairness. If Evans had been convicted of being a total bastard I'd be fully behind it. I just can't say that I completely believe he's guilty of rape.



Even if (which is not admitted) the jury in the first trial got it wrong on the evidence they heard, the fact that they returned a guilty verdict vindicates the CPS's view that there was a realistic prospect of conviction. To argue that even the first case shouldn't have been prosecuted is non-sensical, unless you have reasons other than those which are proper to making a charging decision.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> Even if (which is not admitted) the jury in the first trial got it wrong on the evidence they heard, the fact that they returned a guilty verdict vindicates the CPS's view that there was a realistic prospect of conviction.


Or they got lucky.

The points that Joe was being abused for making last night are not unreasonable.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> Even if (which is not admitted) the jury in the first trial got it wrong on the evidence they heard, the fact that they returned a guilty verdict vindicates the CPS's view that there was a realistic prospect of conviction. *To argue that even the first case shouldn't have been prosecuted is non-sensical,* unless you have reasons other than those which are proper to making a charging decision.



Does that make sense? It looks like it only makes sense if you also think that every time there's been a guilty verdict in any case anywhere then it was right for that case to be brought to trial. Which would mean that every time there's been a miscarriage of justice with someone being found guilty of a crime they are later cleared of, (sometimes after spending half their life in prison) it is the fault of the jury alone and not the criminal justice system ? Don't know about that.
(just talking in general).


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Or they got lucky.
> 
> The points that Joe was being abused for making last night are not unreasonable.



People who didn't hear the evidence the first jury considered, but who are determined to conclude that they got it wrong (on what they did hear), and that the conviction was a fluke, despite the CPS's assessment that there had been a realistic prospect of success.  

Sorry, but I have query why someone would bend over backwards to speculate to that extent. But, the point's been made, now.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> Does that make sense? It looks like it only makes sense if you also think that every time there's been a guilty verdict in any case anywhere then it was right for that case to be brought to trial. Which would mean that every time there's been a miscarriage of justice with someone being found guilty of a crime they are later cleared of, (sometimes after spending half their life in prison) it is the fault of the jury alone and not the criminal justice system ? Don't know about that.
> (just talking in general).



No it doesn't. They decided to prosecute based upon the extant evidence. The acquittal was predicated on material that was created later. The decision to prosecute in the first trial was sound.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> People who didn't hear the evidence the first jury considered, but who are determined to conclude that they got it wrong (on what they did hear), and that the conviction was a fluke, despite the CPS's assessment that there had been a realistic prospect of success.


Well they are making that assessment on the information that is in the public domain. Namely, that X didn't complain that she'd been raped, no other witnesses (except the defendants saying there was consent), no memory, etc, etc; and retrospectively, the damage it's caused to X when apparently she didn't want them prosecuted in the first place (I believe that this was established way back in this thread somewhere).


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well they are making that assessment on the information that is in the public domain. Namely, that X didn't complain that she'd been raped, no other witnesses, no memory, etc, etc; and retrospectively, the damage it's caused to X when she didn't want the prosecution made in the first place (I believe that this was established way back in this thread somewhere).



Yeah, people who, for their own reasons, choose to prefer what they read on the internet to the evidence the jury heard.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yeah, people who, for their own reasons, choose to prefer what they read on the internet to the evidence the jury heard.


Can't you also suggest that of those determined to believe the same of the 2nd trial jury?


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Can't you also suggest that of those determined to believe the same of the 2nd trial jury?



Not when their criticisms are based on e.g. a proper understanding of s.41 and a critique of the detailed rationale behind the Court of Appeal's decision to quash the original verdict, and to admit the new evidence, no.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 17, 2016)

Evans could have avoided all this from the outset if he'd just said he'd fallen over while naked and accidentally penetrated her.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> Not when their criticisms are based on e.g. a proper understanding of s.41 and a critique of the detailed rationale behind the Court of Appeal's decision to quash the original verdict, and to admit the new evidence, no.


Very few of the objectors on this thread are basing their opinions on that. In fact I think you might be the only one, and you don't know what evidence the second jury acquitted him on.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Oct 17, 2016)

albionism said:


> It seems Ched Evans is now going on a talking tour
> about alcohol and consent. Must have got that idea
> from Brock Turner.



Is Craig Charles the support act?


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Very few of the objectors on this thread are basing their opinions on that. In fact I think you might be the only one, and you don't know what evidence the second jury acquitted him on.



My criticism isn't that they acquitted. I couldn't properly criticise on that basis, since I've not heard the same evidence. My criticism is of the decision to quash the original verdict, and to allow the new evidence.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> My criticism isn't that they acquitted. I couldn't properly criticise on that basis, since I've not heard the same evidence. My criticism is of the decision to quash the original verdict, and to allow the new evidence.


I know.

The fact remains that a jury has unanimously acquitted him, in short order, on the basis of something that we can't be sure of. It's possible that the acquittal had nothing to do with the new evidence, beyond the fact that it was what enabled the second trial.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I know.
> 
> The fact remains that a jury has unanimously acquitted him, in short order, on the basis of something that we can't be sure of. It's possible that the acquittal had nothing to do with the new evidence, beyond the fact that it was what enabled the second trial.



You constantly try to diminish the significance of the new evidence (in respect of which you previously conceded being wrong about the timing and content). It's ridiculous to say that the acquittal might have had nothing to do with the new evidence, since, but for that new evidence, the original verdict would not have been quashed. That's not some trivial consequence!


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> You constantly try to diminish the significance of the new evidence (in respect of which you previously conceded being wrong about the timing and content). It's ridiculous to say that the acquittal might have had nothing to do with the new evidence, since, but for that new evidence, the original verdict would not have been quashed.


As I said, the new evidence enabled the second trial. Beyond that you don't know what weight, if any, it was given by the jury.

It's entirely possible that the second jury acquitted, purely on the basis of evidence that was heard by the first.

You were bemoaning 'people who prefer to accept what they read on the internet and haven't heard the evidence', yet you're doing the same.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> As I said, the new evidence enabled the second trial.
> 
> It's perfectly possible that the second jury acquitted on the basis of the evidence that was heard in the first.
> 
> You were bemoaning 'people who prefer to accept what they read on the internet and haven't heard the evidence'.



You have created a strawman.

My position has always been that you can't sensibly criticise either jury for their decision on the evidence. Particularly when you've not heard it, and/or based on some shit you got off the web.

But you can criticise the decision to quash the original verdict, and allow the new evidence. And you can't deny that the new evidence was decisive, because, even if the second jury disregarded it entirely (which is pretty inconceivable), but for that evidence appearing and being ruled admissible (in the circumstances those things happened) the original verdict would have stood.

My criticism of the events which ultimately led to the acquittal is completely different from your criticism of the original conviction/decision to prosecute.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2016)

so, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, pa?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> But you can criticise the decision to quash the original verdict, and allow the new evidence. And you can't deny that the new evidence was decisive, because, even if the second jury disregarded it entirely (which is pretty inconceivable), but for that evidence appearing and being ruled admissible (in the circumstances those things happened) the original verdict would have stood.


... and potentially perpetuated a miscarriage of justice!

There is no strawman. 

The second jury unanimously returned a different verdict to the first. Why, we don't know. It's possible that they thought the new evidence compelling, but also that they took the prosecutions advice, treated it as tainted, and acquitted on something else; like the lack of evidence of rape. 

In that case the first conviction was unsound. That isn't altered by the way the second trial came about.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> ... and potentially perpetuated a miscarriage of justice!
> 
> There is no strawman.
> 
> ...



That position is based on wild (and highly unlikely) speculation about what went on in the jury room (that the content of the new evidence had no impact), and fails to address the substantive arguments about the process which allowed a retrial. 

That you are so keen to reach for that interpretation must go to your motivation.

And here we are again. Let's not keep going round and round


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> Let's not keep going round and round


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> That position is based on wild (and highly unlikely) speculation about what went on in the jury room (that the content of the new evidence had no impact), and fails to address the substantive arguments about the process which allowed a retrial.


No. It's one of your own arguments in reverse. 


> That you are so keen to reach for that interpretation must go to your motivation.
> 
> And here we are again. Let's not keep going round and round


You keep on trying to sling this mud so let me make it clear for you:

For multiple reasons already stated, I do not believe the first trial should have been brought. For multiple reasons already stated, I do not believe that I could declare Evans guilty of rape beyond a reasonable doubt.  

I am not a rape apologist.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 17, 2016)




----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


>




It does feel like that since his position seems to be that the original decision should have been quashed because of the significance of the new evidence, but that the new evidence is unlikely to have been significant to the verdict in the retrial. That's some cognitive dissonance!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> It does feel like that since his position seems to be that the original decision should have been quashed because of the significance of the new evidence, but that the new evidence is unlikely to have been significant to the verdict in the retrial. That's some cognitive dissonance!


sometime's pa's like that


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> No it doesn't. They decided to prosecute based upon the extant evidence. The acquittal was predicated on material that was created later. The decision to prosecute in the first trial was sound.



In that case the decision to acquit his partner was 'also sound'. Which surely posed a considerable question against the soundness. Not only that, but yesterday you re-stated your belief that _both_ should have been found guilty.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> It does feel like that since his position seems to be that the original decision should have been quashed because of the significance of the new evidence, but that the new evidence is unlikely to have been significant to the verdict in the retrial. That's some cognitive dissonance!


You're very good at doing this. You take one section of a disagreement (in this case conceded) and focus on it as if it's all that mattered! It's clever, but a bit dishonest.

There are half a dozen or more strands to the positions set against you by myself and others. You've merely managed to overturn two, but are declaring game set and match!


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> For multiple reasons already stated, I do not believe the first trial should have been brought.



And I've explained why you're wrong; why the original CPS decision was right. 



Spymaster said:


> For multiple reasons already stated, I do not believe that I could declare Evans guilty of rape beyond a reasonable doubt.



I know you wouldn't. Even though you've  not heard the evidence, admitted misinterpreting some of it, and seem to attach weight to other material. 



Spymaster said:


> I am not a rape apologist.



I believe that you believe that.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You're very good at doing this. You take one section of a disagreement (in this case conceded) and focus on it as if it's all that mattered! It's clever, but a bit dishonest.
> 
> There are half a dozen or more strands to the positions set against you by myself and others. You've merely managed to overturn two, but are declaring game set and match!


You conceded the two principal strands yesterday.  But want to cling to the conclusion you based upon them.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

You are very, very, wrong. Both about me, and about this case.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> You conceded the two principal strands yesterday.  But want to cling to the conclusion you based upon them.


Wow, that's a straightforward lie!

Thought better of you than that.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 17, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> 50k



And the acquittal in the first trial?


----------



## Sweet FA (Oct 17, 2016)

Well done lads, great thread to be waving your cocks around on. Pages and pages of it. Have a fucking look at yourselves.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> And the acquittal in the first trial?



Evans was convicted in the first trial.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Wow, that's a straightforward lie!
> 
> Thought better of you than that.



Err...  no. You conceded you'd misunderstood the timing and content of the game-changing new evidence.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

... and have based no argument on it since.

You were telling porkies about that.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 17, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Evans was convicted in the first trial.



His partner in crime was acquitted. Inconvenient isn't it? Which is why I keep having to bring it up.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> His partner in crime was acquitted. Inconvenient isn't it? Which is why I keep having to bring it up.



Why do you think M was acquitted and CE convicted in the first trial?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> View attachment 94047


yes, this was mentioned 10 or 20 pages ago.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> View attachment 94047


see my post 2968


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2016)

Sweet FA said:


> Well done lads, great thread to be waving your cocks around on. Pages and pages of it. Have a fucking look at yourselves.


not quite the language i'd have used on a thread about rape, but it is urban after all.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> In that case the decision to acquit his partner was 'also sound'. Which surely posed a considerable question against the soundness. Not only that, but yesterday you re-stated your belief that _both_ should have been found guilty.



I didn't say the decision to acquit the co-accused was unsound, or that the jury should have found him guilty, though.  

I said that I would have returned a guilty verdict had I been on the jury.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> His partner in crime was acquitted. Inconvenient isn't it? Which is why I keep having to bring it up.


both should have been guilty then i suppose


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, this was mentioned 10 or 20 pages ago.





Pickman's model said:


> see my post 2968



I know. It was a timely reminder for your da.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> ... and have based no argument on it since.
> 
> You were telling porkies about that.



I don't know whether you're mistaken (again), or lying because you keep being shown to be wrong.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 17, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Why do you think M was acquitted and CE convicted in the first trial?



Why did the CPS think it proper for both of them to be charged with rape to begin with?


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Why did the CPS think it proper for both of them to be charged with rape to begin with?


They applied the threshold test for charging, one limb of which requires them to believe there's a reasonable prospect of conviction. That he was acquitted died not mean that there had not been that reasonable prospect.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> both should have been guilty then i suppose


Either that or acquitted together.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> I don't know whether you're mistaken (again), or lying because you keep being shown to be wrong.


You're an awful cheat. I'm beginning to lose respect for you.

The only pertinent strands of our discussion that I abandoned yesterday were on the timing of the new evidence, and my previous belief that it established a pattern of behaviour. Neither of which I have relied on today.

The second part of this is demonstrably false:


> You conceded the two principal strands yesterday. But want to cling to the conclusion you based upon them.


I prepared to accept that it was a genuine mistake, in which case I will accept a retraction.

On the broader issue, you seem to be floundering all over the place and resorting to ever more desperate tactics.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Why did the CPS think it proper for both of them to be charged with rape to begin with?


You didn't answer my question.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You're an awful cheat. I'm beginning to lose respect for you.
> 
> The pertinent strands of our discussion that I abandoned yesterday were on the timing of the new evidence, and my previous belief that they established a pattern of behaviour. Neither of which I have relied on today.
> 
> ...



I've lost respect for you, already.  

And the idea that anything you've cobbled together has had me floundering is laughable.  

I'm happy for anyone to consider the evidence of our exchange and see what really happened. 

Yesterday, you seemed to be basing your argument about the propriety of the acquittal on the two factors about which you subsequently conceded you were wrong. Today, you continue to pursue the same conclusion i.e. to assert that the ultimate outcome was proper, but now you are casting around for other arguments to bolster that position. 

A position you seem determined to take, no matter what. For reasons best known to you. 

Since we've reached a point where we're doing little more than accuse each other of lying, we should leave it there (perhaps conveniently for your pride).


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> They applied the threshold test for charging, one limb of which requires them to believe there's a reasonable prospect of conviction. That he was acquitted died not mean that there had not been that reasonable prospect.[/QUOTE



The very fact that one out of the two involved in a joint enterprise was acquitted outright, demonstrated a gigantic flaw in the credibility of the whole process and it should have led the judge to to direct the jury to acquit Evans as a consequence. 

After all, as the prosecution originally had it, it was his co-accused not Evans who 'procured' the woman to begin with. He then invited Evans to join in. In that sense, he might, as instigator have been considered to be the guiltier of the two. 

Only if his co-accused had turned state's evidence might it have been safe to uphold Evan's conviction in the circumstances. And even then it might have been questionable.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yesterday, you seemed to be basing your argument about the propriety of the acquittal on the two factors about which you subsequently conceded you were wrong.


Massively dishonest again.

Those two factors, if correct, simply bolstered a far broader argument which stands up to scrutiny despite their absence.


> Today, you continue to pursue the same conclusion i.e. to assert that the ultimate outcome was proper, but now you are casting around for other arguments to bolster that position.


Mendacious again. The conceded points are not required to conclude that the outcome was correct. It's not a question of casting around; the case against your position is simply far more comprehensive and multi-faceted than you care to admit.

Anyway, I'll also allow others to draw their own conclusions. You'll have the majority here, not because of anything that you've posted, but because it was all but a captive audience for you in the first place!

Your standard MO seems to be to misrepresent and make things personal when all isn't going your way, and it's happening here.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Your standard MO seems to be to misrepresent and make things personal when all isn't going your way...



Says the person who had to apologise for calling me an idiot yesterday, after I demonstrated he was completely wrong, for a second time. Lol.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Oct 17, 2016)

Two pricks on the internet don't respect each other.....and a young woman has been put through hell so another wealthy white man can stand up and speak as a victim in his warnings about consent and alcohol...and fly his innocent flag like a true martyr.

What a load of shit.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> Says the person who had to apologise for calling me an idiot yesterday ...


And I stand by that apology. But limit it to what it _actually_ regarded!


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Two pricks on the internet don't respect each other.....and a young woman has been put through hell so another wealthy white man can stand up and speak as a victim in his warnings about consent and alcohol...and fly his innocent flag like a true martyr.
> 
> What a load of shit.



Three pricks now.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly - Ched Evans was convicted at the first trial and acquitted at second. What was different about the second trial?


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> Three pricks now.




Do you ever shut up?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 17, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Joe Reilly - Ched Evans was convicted at the first trial and acquitted at second. What was different about the second trial?


Your looking at it the wrong way round.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Your looking at it the wrong way round.



Care to actually answer my question ?




Rutita1 said:


> Why do you think M was acquitted and CE convicted in the first trial?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Your looking at it the wrong way round.


when are you going to defend your comments that it can't be rape if the woman went into the hotel room of her own accord? This is nasty shit and you shouldn't be allowed to wriggle out of this


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Nanker Phelge said:


> Do you ever shut up?


Fuck off.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Your looking at it the wrong way round.


Do you think the 2 trials were conducted in the same way?


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> Fuck off.



No then.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

This is just horrible this thread. Really what is there left to say? 
The only thing that everyone seems to agree on completely is that X has been through hell for no fault of her own as a result of a huge amount of strangers discussing her very private life, and here it is continuing endlessly. It's gross, nobody will 'win'.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Nanker Phelge said:


> No then.



Classic.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> This is just horrible this thread. Really what is there left to say?
> The only thing that everyone seems to agree on completely is that X has been through hell for no fault of her own as a result of a huge amount of strangers discussing her very private life, and here it is continuing endlessly. It's gross, nobody will 'win'.


What's the alternative?

People disagree on what's happened. Those disagreements are bound to be discussed, given that this is a very large piece of recent news.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> What's the alternative?
> 
> People disagree on what's happened. Those disagreements are bound to be discussed, given that this is a very large piece of recent news.


There's a time to give it up when you're saying the same thing over and over again though while convincing no one but yourself. You need to wind your neck in.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> There's a time to give it up when you're saying the same thing over and over again though while convincing no one but yourself. You need to wind your neck in.


Don't be daft. Are you saying that this shouldn't be discussed because it's somehow disrespectful to X? That seemed to be what Bimble was suggesting.


----------



## Diamond (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> There's a time to give it up when you're saying the same thing over and over again though while convincing no one but yourself. You need to wind your neck in.



"Winding your neck in" is a pernicious idea


----------



## cyril_smear (Oct 17, 2016)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Case should never have come to court, and everybody loses as a result of it being brought. Absolutely everybody. From her original statements, the woman herself didn't understand the nature of alcoholic blackouts (this was her first one, it seems), and it appears the police and those deciding to prosecute didn't understand them either. I've experienced them more times than I'd care to admit, so the idea that you can lose hours of your life in which you find out later that you did all kinds of things is very normal to me. And reading of her night, it had all the hallmarks of a blackout. Talking to others outside of here and also reading posts on here, people who've never experienced one seem not quite to understand what it is. A fuck-up from start to end.



What is an alcoholic blackout?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Don't be daft. Are you saying that this shouldn't be discussed because it's somehow disrespectful to X? That seemed to be what Bimble was suggesting.


Kind of, yes.
But it's also pointless and circuitous.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Diamond said:


> "Winding your neck in" is a pernicious idea


It seems to me to be that the only comment OU and a few others on here want posted are those loudly supporting his view. 

Anyone disagreeing should 'wind their necks in'.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Don't be daft. Are you saying that this shouldn't be discussed because it's somehow disrespectful to X? That seemed to be what Bimble was suggesting.



Depends what's said.  For instance your utterly false claim of yesterday that "there was already evidence that she frequently forgot about consenting to sex" could be considered disrespectful.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> when are you going to defend your comments that it can't be rape if the woman went into the hotel room of her own accord? This is nasty shit and you shouldn't be allowed to wriggle out of this





_ 'A woman can't be raped if she walked into the hotel room of her own accord'._ These are entirely your words. Not mine. So put away the pitchforks.



I'm ready to defend the comment you found so offensive.  But in all honesty the onus is on you to produce it first.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Kind of, yes.


Well it's not and she's unlikely to be reading it anyway.


> But it's also pointless and circuitous.


How long have you been here?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 17, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Care to actually answer my question ?



See my post 3620.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> Depends what's said.  For instance your utterly false claim of yesterday that "there was already evidence that she frequently forgot about consenting to sex" could be considered disrespectful.


Wow, you really haven't got anything else besides that, which was conceded, and became irrelevant today. 

You've taken a beating and you're really smarting aren't you???


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well it's not and she's unlikely to be reading it anyway.



Other people might be upset by reading it, though, including one rape survivor who accused you of rape apology.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 17, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Do you think the 2 trials were conducted in the same way?


See my post 3620


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Wow, you really haven't got anything else besides that, which was conceded, and became irrelevant today.
> 
> You've taken a beating and you're really smarting aren't you???



Beating. Lol.

That you're so keen to shrug off as irrelevant the deeply unpleasant stuff you made up about this woman is very telling.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> Other people might be upset by reading it, though ...


Then shut the fuck up!


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> That you're so keen to shrug of the deeply unpleasant stuff you made up about this woman is very telling.


That I _made up_???

Truly desperate stuff. You should stop now.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Then shut the fuck up!



I'm not the one who had been defending Evans, including by lying about what the evidence showed about the victims' sexual history.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> That I _made up_???
> 
> Desperate stuff. You should stop now.



Yes. Made up. You said it, and it wasn't true. It was a figment of your imagination, conjured up in one of your desperate attempts to defend Evans.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> I'm not the one who had been defecting Evans, including by lying about what the evidence showed about the victims' sexual history.


This is often the refuge of the vanquished ... declare that a position held in error and _subsequently retracted and apologised for_ when the error was pointed out, was a LIE.

It's a smearing tactic that's completely dishonest and transparent.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yes. Made up. You said it, and it wasn't true. It was a figment of your imagination, conjured up in one of your desperate attempts to defend Evans.


See last post. More transparent lies.

Come on, turn it in now.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> This is often the refuge of the vanquished ... declare that a position held in error and subsequently retracted and apologised for when the error was pointed out, was a LIE.
> 
> It's a smearing tactic that's completely dishonest and transparent.



More of a smear than:

'there was already evidence that she frequently forgot about consenting to sex... '?

Even if it had been a genuine mistake, the fact that you believed it so readily, and said it so casually, says a lot about your attitude towards X.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> More of a smear than:
> 
> 'there was already evidence that she frequently forgot about consenting to sex... '?
> 
> Even if it had been a genuine mistake, the fact that you believed it so readily, and said it so casually says a lot about your attitude towards X.


Of course it was a genuine mistake. That's why I immediately withdrew it when it was pointed out. 

The fact that you're clinging to it like a dog with a bone despite it's irrelevance shows that you have absolutely nothing left.

Give it up now.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Oct 17, 2016)

Pair of you need to pack it in.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Of course it was a genuine mistake. That's why I immediately withdrew it when it was pointed out.
> 
> The fact that you're clinging to it like a dog with a bone despite it's irrelevance shows that you have absolutely nothing left.
> 
> Give it up now.



You can continue to try to minimise it, but it's entirely relevant to your mindset on this issue; one that a survivor of rape has described as rape apology on this thread.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> See my post 3620


3620 hardly touches on the second trial so 'see my post 3620' in no way answers the question "do you think the 2 trials were conducted in the same way?"

As you know *full well*, the reason the appeal was allowed was the 'new evidence', the woman's sexual history. The introduction of that material, in court - procured with offers of £50000 - was the difference between the 2 trials.  Do you agree that was the case?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> You can continue to try to minimise it, but it's entirely relevant to your mindset on this issue ...


I'm afraid not. Other posters thought the same (or at least didn't challenge it), some of whom were on your side of the discussion. I'm the only one who held his hands up to the genuine mistake.

I don't blame you for making the most of it because defeating it made your argument regarding the evidence introduction slightly more credible. But that's in flames now too. 

I wonder how much more mileage you'll try to get out of a retracted statement!


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I'm afraid not. Other posters thought the same (or at least didn't challenge it), some of whom were on your side of the discussion. I'm the only one who held his hands up to the genuine mistake.
> 
> I don't blame you for making the most of it because defeating it made your argument regarding the evidence introduction slightly more credible. But that's in flames now too!
> 
> I wonder how much more mileage you'll try to get out of a retracted statement!



More lies from a rape apologist.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> See my post 3620



That post doesn't answer my question at all it merely rambles on in the direction you prefer to take the discussion. Dodge away.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> More lies from a rape apologist.


Oh dear. 

Come back when the tantrum's over.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 17, 2016)

Is this alpha male rutting or what?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Is this alpha male rutting or what?


looks like it. using fight-related terminology.
I think a mod needs to bang their heads together.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 17, 2016)

They are already doing that.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> They are already doing that.


i was thinking of a forced ignore


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 17, 2016)

Not sure if Athos really believes Spymaster is a rape apologist or if it's just point scoring


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Oh dear.
> 
> Come back when the tantrum's over.



No, I'm not having a tantrum; I'm not upset at all. Because I've pretty much demolished every argument you've put forward (and you've conceded some of them).

But I've come to realise that you're so firmly wedded to your rape apologist mindset that there's little point in further discussion. 

You know it, I know it, and anyone who wants to see what's happened here can find it out, too. 

So there's nothing left to say but goodbye.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Thimble Queen said:


> Not sure if Athos really believes Spymaster is a rape apologist or if it's just point scoring


Yes, I do, now, sadly.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> Because I've pretty much demolished every argument you've put forward ...


Now I know and you know that that's a silly thing to say. If it were the case you'd be making hay with these demolished points. The fact that you aren't, and have to keep banging on about the point conceded,sets this one alight too!


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Thimble Queen said:


> Not sure if Athos really believes Spymaster is a rape apologist ...


Of course he doesn't. He's just had his arse kicked and is lashing out.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Of course he doesn't. He's just had his arse kicked and is lashing out.


this seems be a delusion you are labouring under. you've been shot down bang to rights, but both of you seem to just scoring points now - why carry on like this? you should know time to stop when others are telling you to stop.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> this seems be a delusion you are labouring under. you've been shot down bang to rights ...



He's had a main pillar of his argument whipped right away!

Don't be silly. Read his position again.

But I accept that you are on his side. Which is fair enough.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> this seems be a delusion you are labouring under. you've been shot down bang to rights, but both of you seem to just scoring points now - why carry on like this? you should know time to stop when others are telling you to stop.



I've stopped.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Don't be silly. Read his position again.


i've been reading the thread. i'm not sure why you're continuing to argue unless you're playing games and this is not the thread for such shenanigans.


----------



## Poot (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> *Unless she was underage; it was her room and they had no reason to be in it, or there was evidence she had not entered the room willingly, the investigation should have stopped there.*



Still waiting for an explanation for this, but every time I look at this thread it makes me want to hit my head against a door, so I'm not sure I have the will to ask again.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> i've been reading the thread. i'm not sure why you're continuing to argue unless you're playing games and this is not the thread for such shenanigans.


The arguing is finished. His point is nonsense and he's now just throwing insults and harping on about the same thing. I'm just defending myself against his lies and smears.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 17, 2016)

Wilf said:


> 3620 hardly touches on the second trial so 'see my post 3620' in no way answers the question "do you think the 2 trials were conducted in the same way?"
> 
> As you know *full well*, the reason the appeal was allowed was the 'new evidence', the woman's sexual history. The introduction of that material, in court - procured with offers of £50000 - was the difference between the 2 trials.  Do you agree that was the case?



The reason the new trial was allowed was to explore the possibility a miscarriage of justice had taken place to begin with.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 17, 2016)

Poot said:


> Still waiting for an explanation for this, but every time I look at this thread it makes me want to hit my head against a door, so I'm not sure I have the will to ask again.



That comment pertains to a situation where an allegation of sexual misconduct or rape is entirely absent. Hope that clears it up.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> But I've come to realise that you're so firmly wedded to your rape apologist mindset that there's little point in further discussion.



Out of order.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> That comment pertains to a situation where an allegation of sexual misconduct or rape is entirely absent. Hope that clears it up.


So it can't be rape if no allegation is made?
How could you allege something if you have no memory if it? It was the police who noticed what was untoward, so they pursued it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> i was thinking of a forced ignore


if you pm editor i am sure he will treat any application for elevation to mod status with the attention it deserves.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> So it can't be rape if no allegation is made?
> How could you allege something if you have no memory if it? It was the police who noticed what was untoward, so they pursued it.


There might be but impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt. As the case showed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> So it can't be rape if no allegation is made?
> How could you allege something if you have no memory if it? It was the police who noticed what was untoward, so they pursued it.


easily enough in the right situation

next


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 17, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> That post doesn't answer my question at all it merely rambles on in the direction you prefer to take the discussion. Dodge away.



The 'ramble' as you so kindly describe it goes to the heart of the matter. If you knew anything about the law and weren't so partisan you would be able to grasp this.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> The reason the new trial was allowed was to explore the possibility a miscarriage of justice had taken place to begin with.


Okay, given that you are not willing to admit why the appeal was allowed and the case taken to a retrial, here it is:


> Following an in depth, ten-month long investigation, the Commission has decided to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. The referral is made on the basis of *new information which was not raised at trial,* and which in the view of the Commission, could have added support to Mr Evans’s defence at trial and therefore raises a real possibility (see note one)  that the Court of Appeal may now quash the conviction. It will now be for the Court to hear a fresh appeal to decide the case.
> 
> The reasons for the referral are set out in detail in a 49-page document prepared by the Commission and called a Statement of Reasons. That Statement of Reasons has today been sent by email to the Mr Evans’ legal team. It has also gone the Court of Appeal and to the Crown Prosecution Service. The Commission is not at liberty to make the Statement of Reasons public (see note 2).
> 
> ...


Do you know what that new information was?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 17, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Okay, given that you are not willing to admit why the appeal was allowed and the case taken to a retrial, here it is:
> 
> Do you know what that new information was?



I think I do. But I'm also sure your determined to tell me.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> I think I do. But I'm also sure your determined to tell me.



Please tell us


----------



## Wilf (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> I think I do. But I'm also sure your determined to tell me.


Okay, we both know full well, but here goes: the new evidence was the woman's sexual history. Do you agree?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 17, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Okay, we both know full well, but here goes: the new evidence was the woman's sexual history. Do you agree?


Yup


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Okay, we both know full well, but here goes: the new evidence was the woman's sexual history. Do you agree?


If the allowance of that evidence leads to the eventual overturning of a wrongful conviction, do you agree that it would have been justified?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 17, 2016)

In case there's any dispute:
Chedwyn Evans v R



> Statement in court by Lady Justice Hallett.
> 
> On 20 April 2012, a jury at the Carnarvon Crown Court convicted the appellant of an offence of rape. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment and he has since been released on licence.
> 
> He appealed to this court against conviction on a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (the “CCRC”) under s.9 Criminal Appeal Act 1995 on the basis that relevant and admissible evidence has come to light, that was not available at trial, and that undermines the safety of his conviction.


Okay, so you agree that it was the introduction of the woman's sexual history that lead to the retrial.  Are you okay with that?  Was the woman's sexual history the thing that persuaded you the prosecution was a 'crock of shit'?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> The 'ramble' as you so kindly describe it goes to the heart of the matter. If you knew anything about the law and weren't so partisan you would be able to grasp this.



Bullshit. You are refusing to answer the question because you don't like it. You don't like it because it encourages you to be clear/honest about the distinctions made in the first trial and why M and CE received different judgements. If you weren't so partisan yourself you wouldn't have a problem answering.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Was the woman's sexual history the thing that persuaded you the prosecution was a 'crock of shit'?


Joe has argued that he doesn't believe the case should have been brought in the first place. So what do you think?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Joe has argued that he doesn't believe the case should have been brought in the first place. So what do you think?


 he thinks that because he believes that a woman willing entering a hotel room means that she can't have been raped. Classic rape apologist material


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Joe has argued that he doesn't believe the case should have been brought in the first place. So what do you think?



Who cares what Joe has argued. He is rubbish at answering questions and is trying to control the discussion by prattling on and boring us all to tears.

Wilf asked you a direct question, why not answer it?


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

Some people here, had they been on the jury, would have found both the accused guilty at the first trial. 
Some would have acquitted them both because they wouldn't have felt sure beyond a reasonable doubt. 
It's not all about logic this, or about the evidence, the new bits or the original, that much is clear. That's why there seems little point in continuing to thrash it out like this, as if it were.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Wilf asked you a direct question, why not answer it?


Me? 

Where?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> Some people here, had they been on the jury, would have found both the accused guilty at the first trial.
> Some would have acquitted them both because they wouldn't have felt sure beyond a reasonable doubt.
> It's not all about logic this, or about the evidence, the new bits or the original, that much is clear. That's why there seems little point in continuing to thrash it out like this, as if it were.


you forget, this is urban. we thrash things like this out. it's certainly not about logic.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> he thinks that because he believes that a woman willing entering a hotel room means that she can't have been raped.


Where did he say that? Quote it.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> If the allowance of that evidence leads to the eventual overturning of a wrongful conviction, do you agree that it would have been justified?


Well, I've been asking for straight answers, so it's only fair I try and answer that:

I obviously don't accept that the original trial had a wrongful conviction, but still, I'll try and answer.  At a philosophical level, poor means may justify good ends, at least for the person who benefits from them.  However that can't be used to justify poor means _more generally_. More specifically, I thought we'd moved way beyond having to have debates about women's sexual histories when it comes to rape trials.  I'll admit - because I'm trying to be honest -  in some kind of thought experiment there could be some kind of extreme situation where a persons sexual history was in some way relevant. However that would have to be something _genuinely_ extreme. The 'new evidence' in this case appeared to be nothing of the sort - and becomes even more problematic after the dangling of the £50,000.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Joe has argued that he doesn't believe the case should have been brought in the first place. So what do you think?


From what I've seen of the case, I think it should have been brought.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Me?
> 
> Where?





Wilf said:


> Was the woman's sexual history the thing that persuaded you the prosecution was a 'crock of shit'?



To which you responded:



> Joe has argued that he doesn't believe the case should have been brought in the first place. So what do you think?


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> The reason the new trial was allowed was to explore the possibility a miscarriage of justice had taken place to begin with.


Really?  I thought the whole point of the new trial was to look at the charge again in light of all the evidence including the new evidence.


----------



## JimW (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> he thinks that because he believes that a woman willing entering a hotel room means that she can't have been raped. Classic rape apologist material


I read Joe as claiming that if she had entered the room willingly and subsequently made no complaint of rape it was never going to be possible to prove it, not that she can't have been a victim of rape.
Not sure that's correct, especially given the first verdict, but it's not rape apologetics either.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Where did he say that? Quote it.


I already have


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I already have



I must have missed that.  Could you post it again?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I must have missed that.  Could you post it again?


I've already dug it out once cos someone else couldn't be arsed to look either.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I've already dug it out once cos someone else couldn't be arsed to look either.


twice won't be so bad then


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

Poot quoted it on the last page.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Where did he say that? Quote it.



there you go pa


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> To which you responded:


Well he wasn't asking me that question but I'll answer it anyway.

No. I wouldn't use "crock of shit" though and this is a complex case with a lot of issues.

Super-lawyer Athos wants you to agree that he's better acquainted with the law than 3 appeal court judges. In reality he was just looking for a vehicle to strut his stuff about s.41.

Originally I misread the transcript and thought that the new evidence had been adduced, in part, to establish a pattern of behaviour of X forgetting about consensual sex. I was wrong about this and withdrew it. However, on the evidence itself I find it hard to believe that NOT ONE juror strenuously objected to its admission. Not one in twelve, seven of whom were women. We don't know that they acquitted him on the the new evidence (even if they did we can't be certain it was bought) but we do know that the new evidence is what brought about the second trial.

My position is that on the evidence I've seen, I don't think that I could have found him guilty of rape_ beyond a reasonable doubt _had I been a juror on the first trial. The new evidence has therefore, directly or indirectly, resulted in what I believe may have been a possible miscarriage, being righted.

I don't believe that makes me a rape apologist.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 94053
> there you go pa


Thanks.

Well that doesn't say she wasn't raped if she went to the room willingly, as Orang Utan suggests, does it now?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Well that doesn't say she wasn't raped if she went to the room willingly, as Orang Utan suggests, does it now?


i don't know why you're surprised by that whippersnapper, pa.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

JimW said:


> I read Joe as claiming that if she had entered the room willingly *and subsequently made no complaint of rape it was never going to be possible to prove it, not that she can't have been a victim of rape.*


That's how I read it too. Joe Reilly 's post looks dodgy but he did not say that nobody gets raped in rooms which they have entered willingly, _and he didn't say that she was not raped. _
He just said (far as I understand it) that without any accusation from her, in his opinion there was not enough there to launch a solid criminal investigation on in the first place.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

A 'possible miscarriage of justice' being defined as a jury of 12 people who heard the evidence disagreeing with someone who didn't (but who had heard a load of other crap on the web).


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> A 'possible miscarriage of justice' being defined as a jury of 12 people who heard the evidence disagreeing with someone who didn't (but who had heard a load of other crap on the web).


Yes, just as you obviously feel about the second trial?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> That's how I read it too. Joe Reilly 's post looks dodgy but he did not say that nobody gets raped in rooms which they have entered willingly, _and he didn't say that she was not raped. _
> He just said (far as I understand it) that without any accusation from her, in his opinion there was not enough there to launch a solid criminal investigation on in the first place.


To me, that means he doesn't think it worth investigating, which is well dodge IMO


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> Yes, just as you obviously feel about the second trial?


No. I don't disagree with the jury's conclusion about the evidence they heard, but with the decision to quash the original verdict and admit the new evidence. Big difference.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> A 'possible miscarriage of justice' being defined as a jury of 12 people who heard the evidence disagreeing with someone who didn't (but who had heard a load of other crap on the web).



All previous miscarriages of justice involve a jury of 12 people hearing all the evidence. (Or so they were led to believe.)


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> All previous miscarriages of justice involve a jury of 12 people hearing all the evidence. (Or so they were led to believe.)



Yes. But it doesn't follow from that the the new evidence ought to have been admitted in this case.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 17, 2016)

What was your reaction to the introduction of the woman's sexual history as the 'new evidence' Joe?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> No. I don't disagree with the jury's conclusion about the evidence they heard, but with the decision to quash the original verdict and admit the new evidence.


Three appeal court judges disagreed with you. And you haven't got a damn clue what went on in the jury room.

Someone on the jury may have said "you know, I think the first jury may have got this wrong", and the others agreed. That's perfectly plausible.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yes. But it doesn't follow from that the the new evidence ought to have been admitted in this case.


I understand your objection better now. Your honest statement that you think you'd have found them both guilty had you been a juror at the first trial is also a part of this though; underneath all the valid objections to the admission of this new evidence is something deeper and less coolheaded I think.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 17, 2016)

Wilf said:


> What was your reaction to the introduction of the woman's sexual history as the 'new evidence' Joe?



Possibily instrumental in the acquittal.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Possibily instrumental in the acquittal.


Did you find it _*problematic*_ that a woman's sexual history was allowed as evidence?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> That's how I read it too. Joe Reilly 's post looks dodgy but he did not say that nobody gets raped in rooms which they have entered willingly, _and he didn't say that she was not raped. _
> He just said (far as I understand it) that without any accusation from her, in his opinion there was not enough there to launch a solid criminal investigation on in the first place.



It's not only that. Without any accusation from her, the police nevertheless took it upon themselves to prove a serious crime had been committed, and without any contribution whatsoever from the primary witness/victim, felt entitled along with the CPS, to fill in the blanks.

Once the had put themselves in that position, the next step was a very small one: inventing a sufficiently convincing narrative to secure conviction. Coppers front and central is my primary objection to the way the whole process developed. It as good as guaranteed it would end as it did.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> It's not only that. Without any accusation from her, the police nevertheless took it upon themselves to prove a serious crime had been committed, and without any contribution whatsoever from the primary witness/victim, felt entitled along with the CPS, to fill in the blanks.
> 
> Once the had put themselves in that position, the next step was a very small one: inventing a sufficiently convincing narrative to secure conviction.



Most of that is not unusual. A boy was killed in my street last year. The police's job was to build a case with no primary witness (nobody saw the actual moment) and the victim for obvious reasons was not able to tell them anything.
So they did it using CCTV and forensic evidence. The trial is not over yet, the accused says they are innocent etc.
But yes, the difference is there was clear unequivocal evidence here that a serious crime had been committed.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> Ok but .. that in itself is not unusual. A boy was killed in my street last year. The police's job was to build a case with no primary witness (nobody saw the actual moment) and the victim for obvious reasons was not able to tell them anything. So they did it using CCTV and forensic evidence. The trial is not over yet, the accused says they are innocent etc.


CCTV and forensics are 'witnesses' if you like in that case. But neither CCTV or forensics are of any value whatsoever as to what actually happened between the parties in the room in the case here.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> It's not only that. Without any accusation from her, the police nevertheless took it upon themselves to prove a serious crime had been committed, and without any contribution whatsoever from the primary witness/victim, felt entitled along with the CPS, to fill in the blanks.
> 
> Once the had put themselves in that position, the next step was a very small one: inventing a sufficiently convincing narrative to secure conviction. Coppers front and central is my primary objection to the way the whole process developed. It as good as guaranteed it would end as it did.


I must have missed something. Have the been accusation of the police falsifying or withholding crucial evidence? Have they been beating confessions out of people in this case? All the evidence is that cops being the utter shits they are, would be more likely to do the opposite of what you describe and fail to investigate possible rapes, rather than try and fabricate a case for one.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> Most of that is not unusual. A boy was killed in my street last year. The police's job was to build a case with no primary witness (nobody saw the actual moment) and the victim for obvious reasons was not able to tell them anything.
> So they did it using CCTV and forensic evidence. The trial is not over yet, the accused says they are innocent etc.
> But yes, the difference is there was clear unequivocal evidence here that a serious crime had been committed.



BBC NEWS | UK | New CCTV unit tackles UK crime

cctv has been treated as forensic evidence for some time.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 17, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Did you find it _*problematic*_ that a woman's sexual history was allowed as evidence?



Introducing someone's sexual history has been shown to interfere with securing justice in the past. Generally I would go along with that. But securing justice is the objective remember. So yes, its problematic, but in this specific case also correct.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> CCTV and forensics are 'witnesses' if you like in that case. But neither CCTV or forensics are of any value whatsoever as to what actually happened between the parties in the room in the case here.



That is your opinion but not shared by everyone, including the judge in the first trial, clearly, who spoke in his sentencing statement of the CCTV footage showing how drunk she was as key to the whole argument that she could not have given meaningful consent, to either of them.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

Rizzle Kicks know what's what:
Rizzle Kicks blast Ched Evans rape case as f***ing vile during epic Twitter rant


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> That is your opinion but not shared by everyone, including the judge in the first trial, clearly, who spoke in his sentencing statement of the CCTV footage showing how drunk she was as key to the whole argument that she could not have given meaningful consent, to either of them.



That's my point. Without her involvement it all becomes subjective. The judge has one opinion. Yet the jury clearly had another one. Which shows he was only half right at best. And then another jury contradicted the first jury, which left his honor with even more egg on his face...and so on.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> That's my point. Without her involvement it all becomes subjective. The judge has one opinion. Yet the jury clearly had another one. Which shows he was only half right at best. And then another jury contradicted the first jury, which left his honor with even more egg on his face...and so on.


It's not subjective when the players admitted to what they'd done.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Rizzle Kicks know what's what:
> Rizzle Kicks blast Ched Evans rape case as f***ing vile during epic Twitter rant





> "That insinuates that if a girl likes sex then she can't be raped??"



Idiots.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> It's not subjective when the players admitted to what they'd done.


Did they admit to rape?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> So yes, its problematic, but in this specific case also correct.



Problematic and correct at the same time?


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> That's my point. Without her involvement it all becomes subjective. The judge has one opinion. Yet the jury clearly had another one. Which shows he was only half right at best. And then another jury contradicted the first jury, which left his honor with even more egg on his face...and so on.


Do you actually understand how a court works? The judge is neutral, he or she is not supposed to have an opinion on the verdict, only to pass sentence if there is a guilty verdict.

Please explain 'another jury contradicted the first jury, which left his honour with egg on his face'.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Did they admit to rape?


Yes, though they thought they didn't


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> Do you actually understand how a court works? The judge is neutral, he or she is not supposed to have an opinion on the verdict, only to pass sentence if there is a guilty verdict.
> 
> Please explain 'another jury contradicted the first jury, which left his honour with egg on his face'.


not to mention his honour was in fact her honour


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Idiots.


Why? They're spot on.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Yes, though they thought they didn't


Where did they do this? Link?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Did they admit to rape?




No. What they did admit to though was enough for the police to pursue them further. I don't imagine many rapists actually willingly admit to it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Where did they do this? Link?


Have you not been paying attention? Their testimony led to Evans' conviction.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Why?


Because the new evidence in this case has absolutely nothing to do were her "liking sex" and nobody in their right fucking mind would suggest that a woman who likes sex can't be raped.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Have you not been paying attention? Their testimony led to Evans' conviction.


Oh, ffs. 

You haven't been reading the thread have you?

What do you believe that means?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Because the new evidence in this case has absolutely nothing to do were her "liking sex" and nobody in their right fucking mind would suggest that a woman who likes sex can't be raped.


isn't it nearly time for dinner, pa?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Because the new evidence in this case has absolutely nothing to do were her "liking sex" and nobody in their right fucking mind would suggest that a woman who likes sex can't be raped.


It's what has been insinuated throughout the case.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Oh, ffs.
> 
> You haven't been reading the thread have you?
> 
> What do you believe that means?


I have. And the same stuff is being said over and over again. You don't think such behaviour is rape, but many of us do.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> What they did admit to though was enough for the police to pursue them further.


This is correct. It's a massive leap to then say they admitted rape, as OU said.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> This is correct. It's a massive leap to then say they admitted rape, as OU said.


What they admitted led to Evans' conviction. I didn't mean they said they had raped her. They clearly think they didn't, but they're wrong.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> It's what has been insinuated throughout the case.


Oh my god. Do you really think this????

That the insinuation has been "she liked sex so it wasn't rape"?

If so you should disqualify yourself from any further part in this thread. Fuck me. Wow!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> What they admitted led to Evans' conviction. I didn't mean they said they had raped her. They clearly think they didn't, but they're wrong.


let's see what you said


Orang Utan said:


> Yes, though they thought they didn't


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> not to mention his honour was in fact her honour


Indeed. Shouldn't be surprised at the inherent gender bias really.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Oh my god. Do you really think this????
> 
> That the insinuation has been "she liked sex so it wasn't rape"?
> 
> If so you should disqualify yourself from any further part in this thread. Fuck me. Wow!


It's been all over the press and social media


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> let's see what you said


I should have been clearer. They gave themselves away, which is tantamount to admission, even if they didn't mean to.


----------



## planetgeli (Oct 17, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> That's my point. Without her involvement it all becomes subjective.



Er...without her involvement (in the consenting process) it all becomes rape doesn't it?

Chuck in bribes of £50000 (and at least one refusal), the exceptional allowance of a woman's past sexual history (but not a man's past predatory behaviour, coz that would 'influence' the jury right?) and it all becomes a bit...vomit inducing.

Or have I missed something?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> It's been all over the press and social media


Only by outright morons on the internet.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> It's not subjective when the players admitted to what they'd done.


They admitted to being sleazy opportunist arseholes who had sex with a drunk woman but stated that they both thought it was consensual.
I honestly would like to know what makes you so certain that they were lying about that.
 You said pages ago that you do not know what drunken consent looks like, so maybe that's what it is, you understand that she was really drunk and you think that anybody who has sex with someone who is very drunk is a rapist.
Which is fair enough but lets be clear, that goes for M as well as Evans.
Otherwise I have to assume that you are passing some sort of moral judgement that says 'nobody could reasonably consent to having sex with some guy that just walked into a hotel room where you're having a private time with his mate.' Is that what it is?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> They admitted to being sleazy opportunist arseholes who had sex with a drunk woman but stated that they both thought it was consensual.
> I honestly would like to know what makes you so certain that they were lying about that.
> You said pages ago that you do not know what drunken consent looks like, so maybe that's what it is, you understand that she was really drunk and you think that anybody who has sex with someone who is very drunk is a rapist.
> Which is fair enough but lets be clear, that goes for M as well as Evans.
> Otherwise I have to assume that you are passing some sort of moral judgement that says 'nobody could reasonably consent to having sex with some guy that just walked into a hotel room where you're having a private time with his mate.' Is that what it is?


Hmm, don't think so. I think there's more to it than that. I think they did lie as far as they didn't care whether she consented or not.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Only by outright morons on the internet.


But these morons have influenced the outcome of the case.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> But these morons have influenced the outcome of the case.


How?


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> How?


By smearing x's name in the most horrendous way, right from the start.
Maybe the jurers were unaware of it but maybe they were.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> How?


It's a large segment of the community for have these toxic attitudes, and the jurors aren't immune to this rape culture. Patriarchy all the way.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> By smearing x's name in the most horrendous way, right from the start.
> Maybe the jurers were unaware of it but maybe they were.


Some of them will share their attitudes too.
Everyone on here should rewatch Twelve Angry Men!


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> It's a large segment of the community for have these toxic attitudes, and the jurors aren't immune to this rape culture. Patriarchy all the way.


Ok. I thought you meant it was part of the defence strategy.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

I know I'm taking a risk here of being called all sorts of things by saying this but its ok because that would be to misunderstand my point of view completely.

One thing which I don't think has been mentioned here yet is this:
'Samples taken the following day showed no alcohol, although the prosecution argued this was due to normal elimination over time.  The samples did show traces of cocaine and cannabis, which she denied taking on the night of the incident. The prosecution argument was that the woman was too intoxicated to have consented.[17][18]
(wikipedia R v Evans)

In all of the outrage here at the outcome of this retrial I think there's a lot of hidden moralising which, whilst it _looks_ a bit like feminism actually isn't.

I might not want to do it myself but I do care quite a lot about preserving the hard fought for right of women if they want to to get high and have sex with 'strangers'.

I'd never want to get so drunk that I might black out, personally, nor would I like to have a threesome with two slimeball footballers.
I don't take cocaine anymore but I know a bit about how that drug effects people's sexual life.

But the assumption that there must be a _victim _involved in the scenario we have been told about worries me.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 17, 2016)

Fucking hell. She can't be disagreed with unless someone has totally misunderstood. The script is written. Any feminist perspective that disagrees actually isn't feminism. All it is is outrage. Subjective, hidden moralising that we are too thick to realise so have to be told.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Fucking hell. She can't be disagreed with unless someone has totally misunderstood. The script is written. Any feminist perspective that disagrees actually isn't feminism. All it is is outrage. Subjective, hidden moralising that we are too thick to realise so have to be told.


No, you're totally welcome to disagree with me, I just wanted to be brave and explain my point of view. You can call me a rape apologist if you want. I wanted to explain why I feel the way I do about this whole thing.


----------



## planetgeli (Oct 17, 2016)

Alcohol leaves the blood stream exceptionally quickly compared with most other drugs. Cocaine (3 days) and Cannabis (up to 30 days) are certainly no comparisons. I see nothing in your post to cause you undue worry Bimble.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> Alcohol leaves the blood stream exceptionally quickly compared with most other drugs. Cocaine (3 days) and Cannabis (up to 30 days) are certainly no comparisons. I see nothing in your post to cause you undue worry Bimble.


The point is that the whole case was based on the idea that a woman who has sex with 'strangers'  whilst drunk / high =  she is a victim.
I have serious misgivings about that as a new moral code that we're all supposed to agree with.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> No, you're totally welcome to disagree with me, I just wanted to be brave and explain my point of view.



There's nothing brave about being condescending and positioning yourself as a moralising-free-feminist-guru-knowing and seeing more than-lesser-feminists.



> You can call me a rape apologist if you want.


 Like I said, script written. Don't tell me what I might and can do either.

That's all you getting btw. Nothing new here from you  AFAICS.


----------



## planetgeli (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> The point is that the whole case was based on the idea that a woman who has sex with strangers whilst drunk / high =  she is a victim.
> I have serious misgivings about that as a new moral code that we're all supposed to agree with.



Not quite sure I get the end of your sentence but having no alcohol in your blood the day after drinking is no proof you weren't rat-arsed the night before. It's an irrelevant point, and your relative quoted factors (cannabis and cocaine) made it less so.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> There nothing brave about being condescending and positioning yourself as a moralising-free-feminist-guru-knowing and seeing more than-lesser-feminists.
> 
> Like I said, script written. Don't tell me what I might and can do either.



ok. Don't think I was trying for the position you mention. It felt scary to me, to come out on this thread and explain why, had I been on the jury, I would probably have acquitted them both.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> But the assumption that there must be a _victim _involved in the scenario we have been told about worries me.





> The woman allegedly raped by footballer Ched Evans was "hysterical" an hour later, a court has heard. She had gone to a friend's house after waking up naked and confused at the Premier Inn in Rhyl, North Wales, Cardiff Crown Court was told. The room had been paid for by Chesterfield striker Evans under the name of his friend, Clayton McDonald.
> 
> Jurors heard the alleged victim arrived at her friend's home and banged on the door loudly. The friend, who cannot be named, told police in a statement: "When I opened the door she was crying hysterically.  "She was sobbing, trying to catch her breath and I gave her a hug to calm her down.
> 
> "When she calmed down, she told me that she had woken up in the Premier Inn naked and had no idea how she had got there."



Yeah, sounds like she had a brilliant night


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Nothing new here from you  AFAICS.


What does this mean?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 17, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Yeah, sounds like she had a brilliant night



He paid for a room in his friend's name.

His friend later texted him 'i've got a girl'.

She was incidental.

He didn't give two fucks (pun intended) about consent.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Yeah, sounds like she had a brilliant night


She had a fucking horrible time in the morning, worse than anything I can possibly imagine. And then had to go through years of unmitigated hell, through no fault of her own at all. Yes. That has no bearing really on whether or not she was a victim of a crime beyond reasonable doubt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> What does this mean?


As far as I can see


----------



## trashpony (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> She had a fucking horrible time in the morning, worse than anything I can possibly imagine. And then had to go through years of unmitigated hell, through no fault of her own at all. Yes. That has no bearing really on whether or not she was a victim of a crime beyond reasonable doubt.



Yes, I think we're all aware of our respective positions on the verdict.

It was this:


bimble said:


> The point is that the whole case was based on the idea that a woman who has sex with 'strangers'  whilst drunk / high =  she is a victim.
> I have serious misgivings about that as a new moral code that we're all supposed to agree with.



I was taking issue with. 

Believing the right verdict has been reached is one thing. Repositioning the whole sordid episode as a great night out for a sexually liberated woman is stretching the bounds of credibility.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Repositioning the whole sordid episode as a great night out for a sexually liberated woman is stretching the bounds of credibility.


I was not doing that. I was explaining why I'm concerned by the moralistic reaction, to the 'sordid' episode. The assumption that she is a victim, even though she never said that a crime had been committed against her ever.

Imagine if there was a referendum now which said "Should having sex with someone who has consumed  .... units of alcohol, and who you haven't met before that evening , be made a crime? Yes/No." Regardless of whether or not they say that they were a victim of a crime, just as a standard, a default. 
How many people would vote yes? I don't know. Maybe a lot. Not me though.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> I know I'm taking a risk here of being called all sorts of things by saying this but its ok because that would be to misunderstand my point of view completely.
> 
> One thing which I don't think has been mentioned here yet is this:
> 'Samples taken the following day showed no alcohol, although the prosecution argued this was due to normal elimination over time.  The samples did show traces of cocaine and cannabis, which she denied taking on the night of the incident. The prosecution argument was that the woman was too intoxicated to have consented.[17][18]
> ...



We've had this conversation before iirc.

Yes women can get high and have sex with strangers. But there comes a point where someone is too wasted to be capable of giving consent, would you accept that? And therefore that if someone else has sex with them, that would be rape, if that person knows the woman is too wasted to be able to give consent?

From what I read of the case, what was said about cctv footage, the hotel porter's testimony, the way Evans and McDonald acted, says she was probably beyond that point. They are clearly predatory fuckers so I have no doubt believing they couldn't care less what state she was in and from how they left the hotel likely knew what they'd done. Without being there it's not really possible to say if they would have known because none of us know how x behaved at the time. I've been in enough situations where people are clearly too wasted to be left alone / need to be helped into bed (and not for sex obviously!) to know that line when I see it and to be very cautious when I'm not sure (not usually in terms of sex but in terms of keeping an eye on them to make sure they are ok). I wouldn't describe someone as "extremely drunk" (iirc the hotel porter's words, I should go and check really) and think I could not keep an eye on them / have sex with them. 

The case isn't about women getting high and having sex, it's about men taking advantage of women who have got too wasted, because those men don't give a fuck about consent and are very happy to take the opportunity to take advantage of someone they can get to say yes / claim said yes. The implications should be about those men and doing something about it because if you spend time in nightclubs (I used to work as a technician) you will see them around, looking for women who are in a state (and I'm not talking meatmarkets here, I worked in underground/alternative music venues). Fucking scum who need locking up and this case now gives them the knowledge they can keep on raping women who are too wasted to be able to give consent but not (quite) passed out (yet). Just make sure they are wasted enough to not remember.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> I was not doing that. I was explaining why I'm concerned by the moralistic reaction, to the 'sordid' episode. The assumption that she is a victim, even though she never said that a crime had been committed against her ever.
> 
> Imagine if there was a referendum now which said "Should having sex with someone who has consumed  .... units of alcohol, and who you haven't met before that evening , be made a crime? Yes/No." Regardless of whether or not they say that they were a victim of a crime, just as a standard, a default.
> How many people would vote yes? I don't know. Maybe a lot. Not me though.



You can't put a number to it ffs (and if you are going to try, at least put a timescale on it as well). Different people have different tolerances. It's about how they are behaving, what state of mind they are in. And yes it's a crime to have sex with someone who has crossed a line into a state where they are no longer capable of giving consent and I can't believe that you would disagree with that being the case.
The question is, if that was your friend, would you think that you should keep an eye on them to make sure they are ok? If the answer is yes then you shouldn't sleep with them. If you are not sure, you shouldn't sleep with them. If you need to help someone to bed, you don't get into bed with them.

Biggest moralistic reaction I've seen is from the abstinence people - if you will get drunk, bad things will happen to you. Blaming the woman for being raped because she got drunk.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

BigTom said:


> The case isn't about women getting high and having sex, it's about men taking advantage of women who have got too wasted, because those men don't give a fuck about consent and are very happy to take the opportunity to take advantage of someone they can get to say yes / claim said yes.


Really good post. But where is the line between the above? Getting high / too wasted is not enshrined in law, yet.
It is not clear. A conviction based on her not remembering draws quite a clear line, doesn't it? But based on what. Where is the line?
Unless it is never ok for women to get really wasted and have sex with 'strangers', unless there is always a crime involved with that scenario.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> Really good post. But where is the line between the above?
> It is not clear. A conviction based on her not remembering draws quite a clear line, doesn't it? But based on what. Where is the line?
> Unless it is never ok for women to get really wasted and have sex with 'strangers', unless there is always a crime involved with that scenario.



No - the conviction (in the original trial) was not based on her not remembering. This was part of it, but there was also cctv and witness evidence, and McDonald and Evan's evidence, that established that she was too drunk to consent (and that Evan's would have known this, but McDonald might not have).

The line is hazy. It's one of those "I know it when I see it" things. ime the times I've blacked out or been with people who have blacked out, there's been no question that they were clearly in a state (in my case, one of those, I was talking to friends in a bar, this is the last thing I remember, my friends say I just sort of slid off my chair and kept talking like nothing had happened... I just don't see how anyone could look at someone lying on the floor chatting away and think they were in a state to consent). Someone (ruby blue?) earlier in the thread said they were lucid when blacked out so clearly it's not a universal thing.
In my next post I outlined a couple of rules of thumb and the most important one - if you are not sure, don't!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2016)

BigTom said:


> No - the conviction (in the original trial) was not based on her not remembering. This was part of it, but there was also cctv and witness evidence, and McDonald and Evan's evidence, that established that she was too drunk to consent (and that Evan's would have known this, but McDonald might not have).
> 
> The line is hazy. It's one of those "I know it when I see it" things. ime the times I've blacked out or been with people who have blacked out, there's been no question that they were clearly in a state (in my case, one of those, I was talking to friends in a bar, this is the last thing I remember, my friends say I just sort of slid off my chair and kept talking like nothing had happened... I just don't see how anyone could look at someone lying on the floor chatting away and think they were in a state to consent). Someone (ruby blue?) earlier in the thread said they were lucid when blacked out so clearly it's not a universal thing.
> In my next post I outlined a couple of rules of thumb and the most important one - if you are not sure, don't!


Tbh the blackout ime after the event, at the time you can appear lucid and even charming


----------



## BigTom (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> Really good post. But where is the line between the above? Getting high / too wasted is not enshrined in law, yet.
> It is not clear. A conviction based on her not remembering draws quite a clear line, doesn't it? But based on what. Where is the line?
> Unless it is never ok for women to get really wasted and have sex with 'strangers', unless there is always a crime involved with that scenario.



actually getting too high is enshrined in law - you can pass the point of being capable of understanding what you are consenting too. At this point you are no longer able to give consent.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

BigTom said:


> The line is hazy. It's one of those "I know it when I see it" things. ..  if you are not sure, don't!


100% agree. (As said before my boyfriend of 3 years won't have sex with me if I seem too tipsy).
This was a criminal case though and the question put to the jury was are you convinced beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed, ie that they were lying when they said that they believed she was consenting.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

BigTom said:


> actually getting too high is enshrined in law - you can pass the point of being capable of understanding what you are consenting too. At this point you are no longer able to give consent.


Where is that enshrined and how is it defined ? It is totally unclear far as I know.

There seems to me to be a tendency towards a default position of victimhood at the expense of agency in the current wave of feminist discourse, showcased in the reaction to this case, which I think could bear some untangling and examination.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> Where is that enshrined and how is it defined ? It is totally unclear far as I know.
> 
> There seems to me to be a tendency towards a default position of victimhood at the expense of agency in the current wave of feminist discourse, showcased in the reaction to this case, which I think could bear some untangling and examination.


So do you think your boyfriend of 3 years is a bit of a joyless fun killer for not shagging you when you're pissed? Is he treating you like a victim and like you don't know your own mind? Or do you think he's respecting you and very clear about you giving him clear consent?


----------



## BigTom (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> 100% agree. (As said before my boyfriend of 3 years won't have sex with me if I seem too tipsy).
> This was a criminal case though and the question put to the jury was are you convinced beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed, ie that that were lying when they said that they believed she was consenting.



Problem for us is that we can't see her behaviour ourselves, all we have to go on in the descriptions given about the cctv and by the hotel porter and phrases can be very subjective. From those descriptions I don't think I could have seen her and thought she was in a state to consent, I think I would have seen her and thought she needed someone to make sure she got home safely. In that state, no matter what she says or does, I would be raping her if I was to sleep with her. I can't say whether or not she actually was or if what I see from those descriptions is different to what they saw. I have no doubt that M and E are predatory scum from the text message and their general behaviour. That to me says they would both sleep with someone they knew to be far too drunk and then lie about it (possibly of course they believe that if she says yes then that is consent no matter what state and/or they have adjusted their memories as we all tend to do, to support our own view of ourselves/the situation, they may well remember a slurred drunk as fuck yes as a clear if drunk yes and stuff like that). Why wouldn't they lie? They know what they are facing if they admit it (and part of the reason predatory men go for women in a state is because they might not remember so it's not even one person's word against another). I don't know what I would have said if I was on that jury because I haven't seen the cctv or other evidence in the way they have. From what I have read about the case (both her behaviour and theirs) I would say they raped her, perhaps if I was on the jury I would say not but it does not feel like the right decision tbh. Partly I suppose because they are clearly sexual predators.



bimble said:


> Where is that enshrined and how is it defined ? It is totally unclear far as I know.



I'm not finding the law now  I'm way too tired to search for legal shit, I'm sure it's been posted earlier in this thread. The law itself I think just states something like "person is too intoxicated to be able to understand what they are giving consent to and other person knows this to be the case". What that means in practice will be defined by case law, R vs Bree I have in my memory, this case will also form part of that case law now.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

trashpony said:


> So do you think your boyfriend of 3 years is a bit of a joyless fun killer for not shagging you when you're pissed? Is he treating you like a victim and like you don't know your own mind? Or do you think he's respecting you and very clear about you giving him clear consent?


I love him very much for it, amongst other things. I think he's a bit exceptional and maybe a bit extreme though. Also I don't want to live in a world where drunk women who want to have sex are necessarily always victims.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> I love him very much for it. I think he's a bit exceptional and maybe a bit extreme though. Also I don't think I want to live in a world where drunk women who want to have sex are necessarily always victims.


i don't think, or at least I hope, it's not that exceptional for a sober man to feel he doesn't have the right to have sex with a drunk woman.
A woman certainly shouldn't feel grateful to their partner for refusing to have sex with them if they're smashed. It's the right thing to do. It's not something to be congratulated on.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> i don't think, or at least I hope it's not that exceptional for a sober man to feel he doesn't have the right to have sex with a drunk woman.


Agreed. I hope so too. But now you're bringing in a whole nother thing:
If one person is pissed and the other one is sober, that sober person has a sort of advantage. It happens to be true that my boyfriend doesn't really drink, the very occasional glass of wine, whilst I sometimes do. Is it the case that M & E were totally sober and clean that night ? So they had a 'reasonable' person's judgement in the law but she didn't? I have no clue.


----------



## bemused (Oct 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Tbh the blackout ime after the event, at the time you can appear lucid and even charming



My experience with alcohol abuse tells me it is very possible for someone to be drunk but appear very aware of their situation; even in the morning if they can't remember any of the events of the previous night.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

bemused said:


> My experience with alcohol abuse tells me it is very possible for someone to be drunk but appear very aware of their situation; even in the morning if they can't remember any of the events of the previous night.


Yep. My friend who I've mentioned here before, who knows blackouts, I had a sunday roast with her yesterday and discussed this.
She has woken up with men and asked them what has happened several times, sometimes it involved sexual stuff and sometimes the answer was that they watched some boxset or ate kebabs and cuddled and then she fell asleep. She said that she has never once felt like a victim of a crime.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 17, 2016)

But has she woken up naked and alone, having vomited and wet the bed and not knowing where she was and how she got there?


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> But has she woken up naked and alone, having vomited and wet the bed and not knowing where she was and how she got there?


She once called me in distress and confusion in the morning, from a houseboat, alone.  But no. Not like that. I am not saying that I think her behaviour is cool by the way, or safe, or 'liberating'. I have been trying for ages to get her to text me where she is going and with whom etc if she's pissed, because I am concerned.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 17, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> But has she woken up naked and alone, having vomited and wet the bed and not knowing where she was and how she got there?



Apparently that is similar to being in a relationship with someone you know and love when you got drunk but they didn't...and we have gone from over-moralising anti-feminists expect too much from strangers to moralising that strangers should and do treat us in the same way that our BF's or partners do and should. Confused?  Aha!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 17, 2016)

bemused said:


> My experience with alcohol abuse tells me it is very possible for someone to be drunk but appear very aware of their situation; even in the morning if they can't remember any of the events of the previous night.


Drunk people can be lucid and even charming


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Drunk people can be lucid and even charming


Yes, and drunk lucid charming people can sometimes be very up for sexual encounters, even with people they haven't met before that evening. Even women! What a shocking thing to say, in this day and age. If it was not for this eternal truth though, I wonder what the UK birthrate would look like.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> Yes, and drunk lucid charming people can sometimes be very up for sexual encounters, even with people they haven't met before that evening. Even women! What a shocking thing to say, in this day and age. If it was not for this eternal truth though, I wonder what the UK birthrate would look like.


very different situation to the case in question though


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> very different situation to the case in question though


How so? Because she was too drunk to consent in your opinion, too drunk to have agency as an adult person in the law.  Based on the CCTV . Is that right? So you'd have found McDonald guilty too.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> How so? You would have found McDonald guilty too, yes?


the victim wasn't described by witnesses as lucid, but as very very drunk and unsteady.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> the victim wasn't described by witnesses as lucid, but as very very drunk and unsteady.


We're never going to agree about this but I think we understand and maybe even respect each others point of view, and we've have managed that without either of us shouting abuse at the other one so that's a real achievement, on this thread.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

bemused said:


> My experience with alcohol abuse tells me it is very possible for someone to be drunk but appear very aware of their situation; even in the morning if they can't remember any of the events of the previous night.


Why does a post like this, a vulnerable honest personal testimony, which matches that of several other people (Pickman, RubyBlue, LBJ, etc) get ignored, whilst the ones saying 'yeah but she couldn't have seemed ok she must have been obviously out of it, they totally must have known that she was incapable of making her own decisions and just didn't care ' get loads of likes?


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> Why does a post like this, a vulnerable honest personal testimony, which matches that of several other people (Pickman, RubyBlue, LBJ, etc) get ignored, whilst the ones saying 'yeah but she couldn't have seemed ok she must have been obviously out of it' get loads of likes?


Maybe because it's not as relevant to the night in question as the evidence from the CCTV and the night porter?


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> Maybe because it's not as relevant to the night in question as the evidence from the CCTV and the night porter?


I think it is relevant. And obviously so do they, the people who have come here to say this exact thing and have been resolutely ignored or worse.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> I think it is relevant. And obviously so do they, the people who have come here to say this exact thing and have been resolutely ignored or worse.


how is it relevant when the victim was by all accounts visibly drunk?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 17, 2016)

Good grief_. 

Stop being anti-feminist moralisers and agree with me. Like what I tell you has value, see things as I do...who cares what your own experiences are and why you think as you do. Do not notice the inconsistencies in my own moralising about what is expected behaviour from those we are close to and complete strangers. All fucking hail.
_
That's all. We have been told. But great we didn't descend into abusive names yeah, that counts. Thread closed.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> *Good grief*_.
> 
> Stop being anti-feminist moralisers and agree with me. *Like* what I tell you has value, see things as I do...who cares what your own experiences are and why you think as you do. Do not notice the inconsistencies in my own moralising about what is expected behaviour from those we are close to and complete strangers. All fucking hail.
> _
> That's all. We have been told. Thread closed.


I know you don't like me but maybe try to engage with what I'm saying instead of calling me names or accusing me of trying to be some sort of, you know, 'princess'. I think it's quite weird actually what you're doing.
Just argue with me, explain where I'm being wrong, why my posts are silly, what I am not getting, why I am mistaken, but don't give me that shit, pretending that I'm setting myself up as something special, I'm not.


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 17, 2016)

Oh youre special bimbleclot x


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

DrRingDing said:


> Oh youre special bimbleclot x


 x


----------



## hegley (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> I think it is relevant. And obviously so do they, the people who have come here to say this exact thing and have been resolutely ignored or worse.


People aren't being ignored but quite frankly someone saying "oh, I don't come across as very drunk when I've had blackouts" or "some people can be very lucid and charming when they're drunk" isn't at all relevant in this case when there are witnesses saying she DID seem very drunk, and she was staggering about and falling over. Even one of the defendants asked for her to be kept an eye on because she was sick.


----------



## bemused (Oct 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> how is it relevant when the victim was by all accounts visibly drunk?



You can't tell how drunk someone is by looking at them, I can't speak to her competence, but from the video she was not only able to walk unaided but also remember she'd left her food behind and go back to get it. I have no doubt she can't remember the previous evening, but I don't think that it is an unquestionable fact that people could tell she was consciously incompetent.


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> I think it is relevant. And obviously so do they, the people who have come here to say this exact thing and have been resolutely ignored or worse.


thing is, the circumstances you describe of being companionably pissed and then forgetting what happened next, are completely different from the circumstances in this case. For a start, the police didn't and wouldn't get involved in that sort of amiable aftermath. Why do you suppose the police got involved here? Because the woman (who has never accused anyone of raping her) presented as someone who'd suffered some kind of traumatic experience at the hands of strangers. Some people on here reckon the police overstepped their authority in probing the circumstances once the issue of the missing handbag had been resolved. I don't. I don't reckon it denies women agency or anything like that. It seems to me more like an attempt to look out for someone who appeared to have been taken advantage of.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2016)

Spymaster, I apologise for calling you rape apologist. 

Whilst I know that I demonstrated that your arguments were deeply flawed (and don't believe that you believe your protestations to the contrary), and whilst I feel that your keenness to defend Evans and cast aspersions about X betray some (perhaps unconscious) misogyny, it's not fair to characterise them as highly as rape apology. I said that out of frustration, because you seemed to be making fatuous points to defend a dodgy position on an important issue, but, whilst I believed it at the time, on sober reflection, it was unfair. 

Essentially (and without prejudice to my feminist credentials), whilst I think you've been an absolute twat about this, I don't think you're a total cunt. 

And apologies to everyone else for my part in tying up the thread with what became little more than dick waving (albeit initially well-intentioned).  The issue is too important to have allowed that to happen.


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> thing is, the circumstances you describe of being companionably pissed and then forgetting what happened next, are completely different from the circumstances in this case. For a start, the police didn't and wouldn't get involved in that sort of amiable aftermath. Why do you suppose the police got involved here? Because the woman (who has never accused anyone of raping her) presented as someone who'd suffered some kind of traumatic experience at the hands of strangers. Some people on here reckon the police overstepped their authority in probing the circumstances once the issue of the missing handbag had been resolved. I don't. I don't reckon it denies women agency or anything like that. It seems to me more like an attempt to look out for someone who appeared to have been taken advantage of.


Who described anything as 'amiable'?
The police are great aren't they, always looking out for anyone who might have been 'taken advantage of', and doing everything they can to make the lives of vulnerable people so much better . So great that she's apparently hoping to move to Australia, to try to get away from all this.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 17, 2016)

crossthebreeze said:


> Just rereading the thread and i'm livid about this.
> It seems that you are introducing evidence on here about x's sexual history which was not aired at either trial or in the appeal papers (the three witnesses in the appeal papers are a man who'd known her for 13 years (ie since she was at primary school), his mum, and a man who 'd initially met her on facebook).  The part of x's statement when she says she wouldn't consent to sex with a stranger is mentioned briefly in the appeal papers but was not used in either trial.  Its irrelevant anyway.
> Where are you getting this info from? - from misogynists on twitter who are continuing to harrass and threaten this woman? - from the ched evans website? or from your own fevered imagination?.
> Its disgusting enough that a woman had her sexual history interrogated in a rape trial.  And shit that people on here are still analysing it and discussing it still.  But trying to talk about aspects of her supposed sexual history which were not introduced at trial is absolutely fucking out of order.



It seems I'm not you massive twat

https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2016/chedevansappealx.pdf


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> Spymaster, I apologise for calling you rape apologist.
> 
> Whilst I know that I demonstrated that your arguments were deeply flawed (and don't believe that you believe your protestations to the contrary), and whilst I feel that your keenness to defend Evans and cast aspersions about X betray some (perhaps unconscious) misogyny, it's not fair to characterise them as highly as rape apology. I said that out of frustration, because you seemed to be making fatuous points to defend a dodgy position on an important issue, but, whilst I believed it at the time, on sober reflection, it was unfair.
> 
> ...


Lol! Phwoar, you're well sore aren't you?

You're full of shit and you know it.

You blatantly used this thread to try to showboat your super-dooper lawyer skills to argue legal details regarding the introduction of s.41. It was all about you. 

The wheels came off, but at least now you've gone for the fully ad hominem approach and aren't pretending otherwise! It's all you're left with.

Apology accepted. As for the rest, fuck off.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 18, 2016)

bimble said:


> Agreed. I hope so too. But now you're bringing in a whole nother thing:
> If one person is pissed and the other one is sober, that sober person has a sort of advantage. It happens to be true that my boyfriend doesn't really drink, the very occasional glass of wine, whilst I sometimes do. Is it the case that M & E were totally sober and clean that night ? So they had a 'reasonable' person's judgement in the law but she didn't? I have no clue.



Again, you don't need to be totally sober to recognise someone else is in a state, just not too drunk. 

Being also very drunk would be a legal defence I should think. M was acquitted, most likely because how he met x was fairly usual way of meeting someone on a night out, not obviously predatory behaviour, though we can see it was from the text message and him leaving the hotel afterwards. CE very different circumstances. I don't remember their own levels of sobriety being mentioned tbh, for that they would need to accept she was too drunk to consent and I think they've always argued she was able to consent (and did so).


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Lol! Phwoar, you're well sore aren't you?
> 
> You're full of shit and you know it.
> 
> ...



Not sore, no. But I was irritated, so said something I shouldn't.

I'm genuinely baffled that you think you had the best of our exchanges, given you were forced to abmit you had things wrong a number of times, though. I just don't get what part of my argument you think you've effectively counted. 

Yes, the main thrusts of what I was saying were legal points, and I make no apology for that.  But, no, not to show off; rather, because it's crucial to this case.

I don't see the issue with a legal analysis. That's got to better than your vague position, which seems to be that, whatever the process that led to it, the acquittal was proper because you would have found him not guilty at the first trial. That is to overestimate the importance of your opinion, particularly since you didn't hear the evidence, and heard a lot more, some of which was undoubtedly inadmissible. 

 I made the points about both the circumstances and timing of the new evidence coming to light, and it's probative value. 

You still haven't offered any argument for the latter i.e. what you believe the new evidence has the capacity to demonstrate (once you'd conceded that it doesn't show the pattern you originally claimed), and how that outweighs the arguments against allowing a victim's sexual history to be admitted in evidence; or how s.41 should apply to it (including the issue of coincidence).  

Want to go again on those points? Genuine discussion of the issue, not bickering or ad hominems.

Maybe start with:

1) Do you accept that, but for the decision that the new evidence was admissible, the original verdict would have stood? 

2) Do you think that the acquittal (including the process leading to it i.e. the decision to admit the new evidence) was good in law? And/or in justice?  If in justice, do you think the procees an/or the outcome were just? 

3) What you think the new evidence could be properly adduced to show?


----------



## bluescreen (Oct 18, 2016)

bimble said:


> Who described anything as 'amiable'?
> The police are great aren't they, always looking out for anyone who might have been 'taken advantage of', and doing everything they can to make the lives of vulnerable people so much better . So great that she's apparently hoping to move to Australia, to try to get away from all this.


I was making an assumption that your friend's drunken encounters, and those of other people here, were amiable. Perhaps they weren't, which sounds a bit alarming. This one certainly didn't end amiably, did it, which is how the police came into it.

Yes of course the police aren't always great. I never said they were. It's their job to protect the public and they don't always do that, and they sometimes use that as an excuse for harassment. Perhaps some people think they were looking to harass Evans here, eh?

But in rape cases, as in any criminal case, the victim isn't the only concern. It's appalling what the victim (though some say she isn't a victim, despite how she presented to her friend and the police) has had to endure at the hand of Evans's fans and the state. Leaving aside for now the question of evidence, which is so contentious, here's a summary of the *policy* on deciding whether to prosecute: 





> When considering the public interest stage, one of the factors that Crown Prosecutors should always take into account is: “the consequences for the victim of the decision whether or not to prosecute; and any views expressed by the victim or the victim’s family”: paragraph 5.12 of the Code. We always think very carefully about the interests of the victim when we decide where the public interest lies. But we prosecute cases on behalf of the public at large and not just in the interests of any particular individual. Striking this balance can be difficult. The views and interests of the victim are important, but they cannot be the final word on the subject of a CPS prosecution.


http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/rape_policy_2012.pdf
So a victim can be a victim of a crime and a sacrificial victim on behalf of the state in dealing with the criminal. That's not how everyone thinks it _should_ be, but it's how it is right now.


----------



## Plumdaff (Oct 18, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Drunk people can be lucid and even charming



But in this case there is evidence from witnesses and CCTV that she was falling over, slurring words, drunk. She wasn't a long term alcoholic or an experienced heavy drinker, she was 19 and this was the first time she ever blacked out. Context.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> Want to go again on those points? Genuinel discussion of the issue, not bickering or ad hominems.


Ok. Half the boards probably have us on ignore now anyway.

I'm travelling today though so it'll be later and sporadic.

One point that you want to dismiss though; the fact that I'd have acquitted at the first trial, is not irrelevant. Many people would have. This opens the door to the possibility of the second jury being of the same mind.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> But in this case there is evidence from witnesses and CCTV that she was falling over, slurring words, drunk. She wasn't a long term alcoholic or an experienced heavy drinker, she was 19 and this was the first time she ever blacked out. Context.


Yes. And you're taking my post out of it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2016)

Plumdaff said:


> But in this case there is evidence from witnesses and CCTV that she was falling over, slurring words, drunk. She wasn't a long term alcoholic or an experienced heavy drinker, she was 19 and this was the first time she ever blacked out. Context.


First time she blacked out? First? Are you absolutely sure about that? Btw, CCTV doesn't give evidence of slurring words.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Ok. Half the boards probably have us on ignore now anyway.
> 
> I'm travelling today though so it'll be later and sporadic.
> 
> One point that you want to dismiss though; the fact that I'd have acquitted at the first trial, is not irrelevant. Many people would have. This opens the door to the possibility of the second jury doing the same.



OK, I look forward to your replies to those three questions.

I've never argued against the propositions that another jury might have acquitted at the first trial, or that their decision at the second was wrong on the evidence they heard.  Rather, my point is that it should never have got to a second jury, and, when it did, they ought never to have heard the new evidence.  I think it was wrong in law and unjust.

Whether you would have acquitted at the first trial is irrelevant to the question of whether the process leading to the quashing of that verdict and the new evidence being admitted was right in law.

I suppose it could be relevant if your case is nothing more than: anything that leads to the outcome I prefer must be right, regardless of whether or not the steps were proper in law or procedurally fair.  That's really what the second question was trying to establish.

But, if that was your position, it would also present the question of what bought you to the conclusion that an acqittal was the right outcome, if not an application of the law.

But we'll cross that bridge if and when we get there!


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 18, 2016)

I know she has been mentioned before, here is the full reply from Vera Baird, the lawyer who had a complainant's sexual history made inadmissible, except in highly specific circumstances:

We cannot allow the courts to judge rape by sexual history | Vera Baird

As you can see, she states that the Ched Evans case comes no where near the bar the law intended for bringing her sexual history in to the case. And as such of course the re-trial should not have happened and Evans' original verdict would still stand.

If anyone wishes to continue the line that he was acquitted last week and therefore must be innocent, that's fine, but you are defending rape.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> If anyone wishes to continue the line that he was acquitted last week and therefore much be innocent, that's fine, but you are defending rape.


Good job that nobody's doing that then.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Good job that nobody's doing that then.



Are you now saying you believe him not innocent of rape?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> 1) Do you accept that, but for the decision that the new evidence was admissible, the original verdict would have stood?



No. Not necessarily. Obviously the jury heard the entire case again, not just the new evidence. It's perfectly plausible that their decision to acquit was based on their belief that Evans believed there was consent, _without_ relying on the new evidence.

Do you at least agree that that could be the case?

It's also possible that the new evidence did play a direct part in the acquittal but there's a hue and cry from about 50% of the country at the moment about it being admitted. I find it difficult to believe that NOT ONE SINGLE juror, 7 of whom were women, dug their heels in and refused to acquit on either the basis of its admission or its content. According to some analyses on this thread it suggests that they managed to swear a jury of 12 rape apologists.

We don't know what they acquitted on but it's quite possible that they simply disagreed with the first trial jury.



> 2) Do you think that the acquittal (including the process leading to it i.e. the decision to admit the new evidence) was good in law? And/or in justice?


See above regarding the first part of the question regarding the acquittal.

As far as the decision to admit the evidence is concerned, the defence convinced 3 judges that the similarity of X's behaviour on previous occasions alleged by the witnesses was sufficiently similar to that which Evans testified to, so as unlikely to be coincidence.

The obvious issue is whether the evidence is false, and corruptly obtained, but it's impossible for them to conclude with certainty that it was, and the witnesses swore that it wasn't. If it's not, it could be considered to support his position that he believed that there was consent, and therefore his possible innocence. This is an exceptional case with no actual complaint from the actual complainant. Let a jury decide.


> 3) What you think the new evidence could be properly adduced to show?


That if true, X used the same words and behaviour on 3 separate occasions, 2 of which there is no question of consent being an issue. It could conceivably follow that Evans believed she was consenting. If X even slightly indicated that she didn't consent I'd believe her 100%, but she didn't even want this case to go to court!

But again, the jury didn't have to have any belief in the safe introduction and content of the new evidence to acquit.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Are you now saying you believe him not innocent of rape?


I've been saying all along that he may be guilty. I just don't believe that there's enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I've been saying all along that he may be guilty. I just don't believe that there's enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.



And if you discount the new evidence, as the formulator of the law intended. What then?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And if you discount the new evidence, as the formulator of the law intended. What then?


See #3837


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> See #3837



Your contention in that post directly contradicts what Vera Baird states, so we can assume that on that matter you are wrong.

So with that in mind, #3839 ?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Your contention in that post directly contradicts what Vera Baird states ...


So what?

So did the decision of 3 appellate judges and she concedes in her piece that not all lawyers agree with her _as regards this case._

Your #3839 is fully answered in my previous post.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> So what?
> 
> So did the decision of 3 appellate judges and she concedes in her piece that not all lawyers agree with her.



You are not a lawyer. The 3 appellate judges failed to apply the law as the law-maker intended, without recourse to her.

All you have is wild supposition.

The two situations are not linked.

Your supposition does directly contradict what Vera Baird states though and she knows a lot more than you do.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 18, 2016)

Anyway, gotta go to a meeting. You can wish me luck if you like?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You are not a lawyer.


No. But I can read what lawyers say.


> The 3 appellate judges failed to apply the law as the law-maker intended


That's disputable. You are not a lawyer either. Although I've a feeling that Athos will be arguing something similar later.


> Your supposition does directly contradict what Vera Baird states though and she knows a lot more than you do.


I don't think so. Which bit?

Once again, you asked 'what if the new evidence was discounted', and I addressed my view on that in the post I directed you to.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Anyway, gotta go to a meeting. You can wish me luck if you like?


Good luck!


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No. Not necessarily. Obviously the jury heard the entire case again, not just the new evidence. It's perfectly plausible that their decision to acquit was based on their belief that Evans believed there was consent, _without_ relying on the new evidence.
> 
> Do you at least agree that that could be the case?



Yes, that could be the case, but it's a red herring.  I've never disputed that it is possible the second jury could have found him not guilty without relying on the new evidence (though it's unlikely that the further material had no impact on their deliberations).  That's not in dispute.

But you've not really answered the question; "not necessarily" is a fudge.  I can see why you don't want to concede the point, but it's really untenable to imply that there is any possibility whatsoever that the original verdict would not have stood but for the admissibility of the new evidence.  It was becasue the Court of Appeal decided that the new evidence was admissible that the original verdict was quashed; had they decided against admissibility, it would have not have been quahed (since the appeal was not granted on any other basis).  Can you unequivocally acknowledge that point?




Spymaster said:


> It's also possible that the new evidence did play a direct part in the acquittal but about 50% of the country are up in arms about the sexual history being admitted. I find it difficult to believe that NOT ONE SINGLE juror, 7 of whom were women, dug their heels in and refused to acquit on either the basis of its admission or its content. According to some analyses on this thread it suggests that they managed to swear a jury of 12 rape apologists.



The jury would not have known the basis of the appeal, and what further material had been admitted.  Nor would they have been allowed to disregard evidence based upon their own assessment of its admissibility.  They were hardly likely to acquit on its content; it was called by the defence.




Spymaster said:


> As far as the decision to admit the evidence is concerned, the defence convinced 3 judges that the similarity of X's behaviour on previous occasions alleged by the witnesses was sufficiently similar to that which Evans testified to, so as unlikely to be coincidence.



I understand the chronology of what happened, but, again, you've not asnwered the question.  I asked whether you believed it was: i) good in law; ii) good in justice; and, iii) if good in justice, whether that's becasue the process was just and/or the outcome.  Please would you answer those three very specific points.




Spymaster said:


> The obvious issue is whether the evidence is false, and corruptly obtained, but it's impossible for them to conclude with certainty that it was, and the witnesses swore that it wasn't. If it's not, it could be considered to support his position that he believed that there was consent, and therefore his possible innocence. So let a jury decide.



The obvious issue isn't just whether the evidence was true or false, or whether it was corruptly obtained, there's questions (of law and procedural fairness) of whether or not it ought to have been admitted, and a big question mark about what conclusions could properly be drawn from it.  If you answer the three original questions (and some supplemental questions, below, concerning the third original question), we will be better able to tease out this issue.  (Meantime, I note your implication that the test for admissibility should be whether or not the court could conclude with certainty that it was false or corruptly obtained.)




Spymaster said:


> That if true, X used the same words and behaviour on 3 separate occasions, 2 of which there is no question of consent being an issue. It could conceivably follow that Evans believed she was consenting.



Do you think that a woman liking doggiestyle sex and urging people to fuck her harder is too unusual as to be explained by coincidence?  How much weight could a jury reasonably attach to those facts even if proved?  What does it show?  Do you think there's a cut off point below which the limited probative value of evidence is outweighed by factors in favour of its exclusion?  Or that any fact that might, however tenously, add weight to the dfence case should be admitted?  What if it also means the 'backdoor' admission of other material which would, of itself, be inadmissible?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You are not a lawyer. The 3 appellate judges failed to apply the law as the law-maker intended, without recourse to her.


i am not sure that judges contact lawmakers to find out their apparently unstated intentions, going rather - as i understand it - on what the law actually says. or at least that's the way it works in theory.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i am not sure that judges contact lawmakers to find out their apparently unstated intentions, going rather - as i understand it - on what the law actually says. or at least that's the way it works in theory.



Judges often have to infer what parliament intended, which is often not clear on the black letter of the law alone.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> Judges often have to infer what parliament intended, which is often not clear on the black letter of the law alone.


as i said about 1000 posts ago, baird should have spoken out some time ago about the appeal court's decision.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> as i said about 1000 posts ago, baird should have spoken out some time ago about the appeal court's decision.



Maybe, but I suppose she was fearful of commenting on what was still a live judicial matter.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> Maybe, but I suppose she was fearful of commenting on what was still a live judicial matter.


... not to mention what the ccrc's lawyers considered ...

i suppose they do have lawyers look at stuff before they refer cases to the court of appeal.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> ... not to mention what the ccrc's lawyers considered ...
> 
> i suppose they do have lawyers look at stuff before they refer cases to the court of appeal.



Yes, albeit there are serious question marks about the transparency of that process.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Obviously the jury heard the entire case again, not just the new evidence.


They didn't actually - McDonald wasn't called


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Good luck!




Thanks. Went well


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 18, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> as i said about 1000 posts ago, baird should have spoken out some time ago about the appeal court's decision.



She, like everyone else, wasn't privvy to the grounds for the appeal until the new trial was underway. So how could she have done as you've asked erroneously twice now?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So how could she have done as you've asked erroneously twice now?


please stop pedantically attacking my grammar on specious grounds


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yes, that could be the case, but it's a red herring.  I've never disputed that it is possible the second jury could have found him not guilty without relying on the new evidence (though it's unlikely that the further material had no impact on their deliberations).  That's not in dispute.


Good, because it's more important than you're prepared to admit. For obvious reasons.


> ... it's really untenable to imply that there is any possibility whatsoever that the original verdict would not have stood but for the admissibility of the new evidence.


That's bullshit. You are trying to conflate the fact that the new evidence _caused_ the retrial with it's content having a direct affect on it's outcome. It may or my not have done. You're asking us to believe that NOT ONE juror said "hang on, what the fuck has her previous behaviour with X and Y got to do with her behaviour with Evans".


> It was becasue the Court of Appeal decided that the new evidence was admissible that the original verdict was quashed; had they decided against admissibility, it would have not have been quahed (since the appeal was not granted on any other basis).  Can you unequivocally acknowledge that point?


See above.


> The jury would not have known the basis of the appeal, and what further material had been admitted.  Nor would they have been allowed to disregard evidence based upon their own assessment of its admissibility.


No, but they would realise that they were hearing evidence of her previous sexual encounters and they would have been able to put forward their objection or disbelief in deliberations.

Why do you think nobody did?


> They were hardly likely to acquit on its content; it was called by the defence.





> I understand the chronology of what happened, but, again, you've not asnwered the question.  I asked whether you believed it was: i) good in law; ii) good in justice; and, iii) if good in justice, whether that's becasue the process was just and/or the outcome.


I'm sorry but it's not so simple. But don't be running off congratulating yourself and declaring victory.

As far as (i) goes, I think probably. This is an exceptional case where the alleged victim didn't make any complaint and didn't say she didn't consent. She didn't even want the case brought. That makes it fucking difficult not to allow the defendant leeway on the issue of consent.

On (ii) & (iii) I think on balance the justice is probably correct in process and outcome for the reasons stated in the previous post as well as above.


> Do you think that a woman liking doggiestyle sex and urging people to fuck her harder is too unusual as to be explained by coincidence?


Probably enough to be put to a jury when the rest of the evidence of actual rape is so shit.


> How much weight could a jury reasonably attach to those facts even if proved?  What does it show?


Are you saying it's not (or shouldn't be) that compelling? Many on this thread disagree completely with you and you seem to be arguing that it's what turned the jury. Can you make your position clear on this please because I might agree with you?


> Do you think there's a cut off point below which the limited probative value of evidence is outweighed by factors in favour of its exclusion?


Yes. I've been explaining that. Where do you think it should be in a case of rape where the complainant hasn't indicated lack of consent?


> Or that any fact that might, however tenously, add weight to the dfence case should be admitted?  What if it also means the 'backdoor' admission of other material which would, of itd=self, be inadmissible?


Explain this in the context of this case.

ETA> I don't have the transcript available at the moment but will later.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

trashpony said:


> They didn't actually - McDonald wasn't called


No indeed. But they heard the evidence against Evans. Any testimony from M was likely to be exculpatory to Evans though, no?


----------



## trashpony (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No indeed. But they heard the evidence against Evans. Any testimony from M was likely to be exculpatory to Evans though, no?


I don't know, I wasn't there. I don't want to debate it again; just correcting a factual error.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

trashpony said:


> I don't want to debate it again; just correcting a factual error.


Would you prefer Athos and I to take this off the boards and to PMs?

He's going to counter what I've said with reams of legal argument as to why it wasn't good law to allow the new evidence, because he'll say I didn't cover it in my last post to him and he's hanging his argument on it.

We are then going to get into a huge debate on sections 47-74 of the appeal transcript (which I now have in front of me).

I realise that this may be upsetting for some and is almost certainly fucking boring to pretty much everyone.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 18, 2016)

Yes, I would love that. Thank you


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You are trying to conflate the fact that the new evidence _caused_ the retrial with it's content having a direct affect on it's outcome. It may or my not have done. You're asking us to believe that NOT ONE juror said "hang on, what the fuck has her previous behaviour with X and Y got to do with her behaviour with Evans".



So, having conceded that the new evidence casued the retrial, you must concede that, but for the new evidence, there would have been no retrial, which means that, but for the new evidence, the original verdict would not have been quashed i.e. he would still be considered guilty, no?

That is all I'm saying; I'm explicitly not saying what you keep trying to suggest I am; I have very clearly acknowledged (more than once) that the second jury's decision may not have been influenced by the content of the new evidence. 




Spymaster said:


> No, but they would realise that they were hearing evidence of her previous sexual encounters and they would have been able to put forward their objection or disbelief in deliberations.



No they wouldn't.  Juries can't object to the admission of particular evidence.  That you seem to think they can reveals a profound misunderstanding about the process, and the role of a jury.




Spymaster said:


> As far as (i) goes, I think probably. This is an exceptional case where the alleged victim didn't make any complaint and didn't say she didn't consent. She didn't even want the case brought. That makes it fucking difficult not to allow the defendant leeway on the issue of consent.



Just to be clear, are you suggesting that the reasons this evidence satisfied the legal test for admissibiity are: first, that the victim didn't make a complaint; secodly, the she didnt say she didn't consent; and, thirdly, becasue she disn't want the case to be brought?  If not, please set out the reasons why you believe the admission of this evidence being legally sound.




Spymaster said:


> On (ii) & (iii) I think on balance the justice is probably correct in process and outcome for the reasons stated in the previous post as well as above.



I don't think you've ever really made those reasons clear; please would you set out why you decided that the admission of the new evidence was procedurally just and produced a just result.




Spymaster said:


> Probably enough to be put to a jury when the rest of the evidence of actual rape is so shit.



So, your position is that, becasue of the alleged paucity of the other evidence (which overlooks that it was sufficient to secure a conviction the first time), the similarity between the Evans' accounts and those of the two new witnesses cannot be explained by coincidence i.e. that there's something that must be more than coincidental about the fact that the three of them said she liked doggie and vocally encouraged partners?




Spymaster said:


> Are you saying it's not (or shouldn't be) that compelling?



No, I'm asking you what you think.  Please would you have a go at those questions?  Namely:

How much weight could a jury reasonably attach to those facts even if proved? What does it show? Do you think there's a cut off point below which the limited probative value of evidence is outweighed by factors in favour of its exclusion? Or that any fact that might, however tenously, add weight to the dfence case should be admitted? What if it also means the 'backdoor' admission of other material which would, of itself, be inadmissible?




Spymaster said:


> Many on this thread disagree completely with you and you seem to be arguing that it's what turned the jury.



Once again, I am explicitly NOT saying any such thing!  I'm saying the new evidence is what convinced the Court of Appeal to quash the original verdict, though.




Spymaster said:


> Yes. I've been explaining that. Where do you think it should be in a case of rape where the complainant hasn't indicated lack of consent?



Ok, so if you agree there's a cut-off point, where do you think it should be?  How insignificant ought the new evidence to be before it ought not to be admitted?

Personally, I don't think the new evidence is of sufficient probative value to justify it's admissibility; taken at its highest (and so putting aside the questions about the circumsatnces in which it was produced), it cannot provide a sound basis for any conclusion about what happened that night, partly becasue it can very easily be explained as coincidence, and so ought not to have met the test for admissibility.




Spymaster said:


> Explain this in the context of this case.



The admission of this evidence effectively introduced the idea that she was promiscous, which would have been otherwise inadmissible.  Do you think that's right?


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Yes, I would love that. Thank you



Sorry, posted my last post before I saw this.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 18, 2016)

Timing


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster, let's just leave it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> And then some people are surprised at the low rates of a) sex crime reporting and b) subsequent conviction rates.



Fuck knows why they're surprised, unless they're the dumbest of dumbfucks.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Yes, I would love that. Thank you


No problem at all. My intention really hasn't been to upset anyone. 

I'm setting this up as a private conversation to include Athos' last post. 

If anyone wants an invite let me know and I'll include you, though I reckon we could be on our own!


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No problem at all. My intention really hasn't been to upset anyone.
> 
> I'm setting this up as a private conversation to include Athos' last post.
> 
> If anyone wants an invite let me know and I'll include you, though I reckon we could be on our own!



I think you could be on your own!  I'm not sure there's any value in such a pm conversation.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 18, 2016)

Are you two gonna argue about whether you need a PM session now?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> I'm not sure there's any value in such a pm conversation.


It's the internet. And I'm right. 

Even if I only get you to realise it. 

I'm going to PM you a reply to your post (which misses several of my points, particularly the role of a jury) anyway, and I don't think you'll be able to resist responding.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> It's the internet. And I'm right.
> 
> Even if I only get you to realise it.
> 
> I'm going to PM you a reply to your post (which misses several of my points, particularly the role of a jury) anyway, and I don't think you'll be able to resist responding.



Please don't bother; I won't respond.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 18, 2016)

It's clearly love...the love of arguing and wanting to be RIGHT that is.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> It's clearly love...the love of arguing and wanting to be RIGHT that is.



If you ever try being right, you'll find it's addictive.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> If you ever try being right, you'll find it's addictive.



...and therein lies_ your_ problem....and why yourself and Spy have successfully bored us all and yourselves to within an inch of the will to read Urban again EVER, or live for that matter!


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> ...and therein lies_ your_ problem....and why yourself and Spy have successfully bored us all and yourselves to within an inch of the will to read Urban again, EVER or live for that matter!



Poor you.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> If you ever try being right, you'll find it's addictive.


Not that you'd know.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Not that you'd know.



Touche!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> ...and therein lies_ your_ problem....and why yourself and Spy have successfully bored us all and yourselves to within an inch of the will to read Urban again EVER, or live for that matter!


Urban at its best


----------



## belboid (Oct 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> ...and therein lies_ your_ problem....and why yourself and Spy have successfully bored us all and yourselves to within an inch of the will to read Urban again EVER, or live for that matter!


I've quite enjoyed seeing spymasters disingenuous bullshit torn apart, myself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2016)

belboid said:


> I've quite enjoyed seeing spymasters disingenuous bullshit torn apart, myself.


Yeh for you it's always a spectator sport


----------



## belboid (Oct 18, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh for you it's always a spectator sport


Stick to pulling people up on grammatical errors lad, you're almost competent at that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2016)

belboid said:


> Stick to pulling people up on grammatical errors lad, you're almost competent at that.


Yeh, it's weak wank like that that's your strongest suit. And you're shit at that too.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

belboid said:


> I've quite enjoyed seeing spymasters disingenuous bullshit torn apart, myself.


Ahhh, there you are, Bellend; thought I could smell something!

That you think anything's been torn apart simply shows you for who and what you are.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 18, 2016)

I think we should remember there are victims of sexual violence on this board and on this very thread. They can speak for themselves, but I doubt they find this infantile point scoring to be particularly helpful.


----------



## Looby (Oct 18, 2016)

I agree Wilf, please stop! I'm avoiding this thread now because it's upsetting and I can't be arsed to wade through the pages of arguing.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 18, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> Do you actually understand how a court works? The judge is neutral, he or she is not supposed to have an opinion on the verdict, only to pass sentence if there is a guilty verdict.
> 
> Please explain 'another jury contradicted the first jury, which left his honour with egg on his face'.



You have a lot to say how a court works clearly without ever having been in one.


----------



## Pac man (Oct 18, 2016)

Hi, s41-43 of the EJCEA intent was to abolish the introduction of any evidence of the sexual history of the victim, as this had been used previously to undermine her credibility. So section 41 prevented the cross examination of the victims sexual history if its intent was to show promiscuity, undermine her credibility and just blatantly attack her character, however in a trail the credibility of both parties will be questioned to some extent. What section 41 didn’t do was abolish “similar fact evidence” “relevant evidence” or refuse evidence which might result in an unfair trial under Article 6. S41 was and still is a restrictive statute according to many Criminal Evidence scholars as it also prevented any previous sexual history between the accused and the victim.

S41-43 didn’t differentiate, this was the crux of the case of R v A 2001.. where a boyfriend (used loosely) was prevented from introducing evidence that he had previously slept with the victim a week before, the ECJ held that only if sexual intercourse had taken place within a 48 hour period would it be relevant, anything outside of that window wasn’t relevant unless the circumstances in with the alleged offense took place were so similar. This 48 hour window brought a bit of clarity to the vague terminology of some of s41-43

 What s41 didn’t do either was differentiate between “similar fact evidence” in relation to previous sexual history of the accused and victim and the victim and “others”. This void in the legislation has always been filled by either the HRA or CJA, in fairness and in the interest of justice if relevant evidence was not introduced it would seriously undermine any conviction. So what is relevant in the Evans case is firstly the victim had no recollection of intercourse but Evans did and gave a very detailed account of the events never denying anything other than the polices assertion that the victim was too drunk to consent and that he did not rape her and that she had consensual sex and took the lead making several sexual comments and changing sexual positions and inviting Evans to enter her whilst on all fours.

The new evidence from witnesses that had previous encounters with the victim was of paramount importance. These witnesses accounts of their sexual encounters with the victim were not an attempt to attack her character or attack her credibility, barred by s41...on the contrary, it was because her behaviour and words that were used demonstrate the Evans either thought the victim was consenting or that he had reasonable belief that she was consenting..because others had had sex with her and the exact same things had happened, she had no recollection of her actions the night before,  a pattern of getting drunk and not knowing whether she had sex or not emerged, but more importantly the other witnesses who had experienced this could show that they were not rapists and at the very least had a reasonable belief in consent at the time due to her sexual behaviour and words used during intercourse, to show she may have been drunk but was an active willing and sometimes dominant party to intercourse in circumstances that may be argued either way are a little more than coincidence not extraordinary just similar and highly relevant to Evans case.

The only reason these witness statements were not introduced earlier was that for the first trial Evans lawyers failed to question witnesses about the victims actions and words that she had used during intercourse with them as the lawyers mistakenly thought this would be barred under s41 under previous sexual history, so they didn’t think to ask the relevant questions to the witnesses, there was no record on file according to the court of the initial solicitors exploring this avenue in any depth, infact the only reason the witness who was first intended to be used was interviewed, was only to counter the assertion that the victim wouldn’t sleep with a stranger, but seeing as the prosecution retracted that assertion there was no need to call the witnesses to give evidence, or so his first incopenet legal team thought, it was only when these witnesses were questioned more thorough that it became apparent that there was the need to introduce their evidence to back up Evans claim she consented or that he had reasonable belief she was consenting due to her words and actions that took place which was so similar to the other occasions including her memory loss, that to deny this evidence would result in an unsafe conviction. It should be noted that the witnesses had very little contact with Evans and his circle, both witnesses were of good character and noted by the court they were credible and there was no evidence whatsoever of coercion or fabrication of evidence.  So s41 hasn’t changed, it still prohibits the questioning of the victims sexual history if the intent is to humiliate, discredit her character or solely attack her credibility (remembering that the credibility of both parties will to some degree always be in question)..It “should “never prevent the accused from a fair trial.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 18, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> Alcohol leaves the blood stream exceptionally quickly compared with most other drugs.



It's not a drug and it dosen't.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Hi, s41-43 of the EJCEA intent was to abolish the introduction of any evidence of the sexual history of the victim, as this had been used previously to undermine her credibility. So section 41 prevented the cross examination of the victims sexual history if its intent was to show promiscuity, undermine her credibility and just blatantly attack her character, however in a trail the credibility of both parties will be questioned to some extent. What section 41 didn’t do was abolish “similar fact evidence” “relevant evidence” or refuse evidence which might result in an unfair trial under Article 6. S41 was and still is a restrictive statute according to many Criminal Evidence scholars as it also prevented any previous sexual history between the accused and the victim.
> 
> S41-43 didn’t differentiate, this was the crux of the case of R v A 2001.. where a boyfriend (used loosely) was prevented from introducing evidence that he had previously slept with the victim a week before, the ECJ held that only if sexual intercourse had taken place within a 48 hour period would it be relevant, anything outside of that window wasn’t relevant unless the circumstances in with the alleged offense took place were so similar. This 48 hour window brought a bit of clarity to the vague terminology of some of s41-43
> 
> ...


Too long but did read. Ta


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> It's not a drug and it dosen't.


Er it is a drug


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Hi, s41-43 of the EJCEA intent was to abolish the introduction of any evidence of the sexual history of the victim, as this had been used previously to undermine her credibility. So section 41 prevented the cross examination of the victims sexual history if its intent was to show promiscuity, undermine her credibility and just blatantly attack her character, however in a trail the credibility of both parties will be questioned to some extent. What section 41 didn’t do was abolish “similar fact evidence” “relevant evidence” or refuse evidence which might result in an unfair trial under Article 6. S41 was and still is a restrictive statute according to many Criminal Evidence scholars as it also prevented any previous sexual history between the accused and the victim.
> 
> S41-43 didn’t differentiate, this was the crux of the case of R v A 2001.. where a boyfriend (used loosely) was prevented from introducing evidence that he had previously slept with the victim a week before, the ECJ held that only if sexual intercourse had taken place within a 48 hour period would it be relevant, anything outside of that window wasn’t relevant unless the circumstances in with the alleged offense took place were so similar. This 48 hour window brought a bit of clarity to the vague terminology of some of s41-43
> 
> ...


Too late. 

But good post.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> Alcohol leaves the blood stream exceptionally quickly compared with most other drugs. Cocaine (3 days) and Cannabis (up to 30 days) are certainly no comparisons. I see nothing in your post to cause you undue worry Bimble.


Maybe quick from blood but not hair or urine How long do drugs stay in your system? - Drug and Alcohol Information and Support in Ireland - Drugs.ie


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Hi, s41-43 of the EJCEA intent was to abolish the introduction of any evidence of the sexual history of the victim, as this had been used previously to undermine her credibility. So section 41 prevented the cross examination of the victims sexual history if its intent was to show promiscuity, undermine her credibility and just blatantly attack her character, however in a trail the credibility of both parties will be questioned to some extent. What section 41 didn’t do was abolish “similar fact evidence” “relevant evidence” or refuse evidence which might result in an unfair trial under Article 6. S41 was and still is a restrictive statute according to many Criminal Evidence scholars as it also prevented any previous sexual history between the accused and the victim.
> 
> S41-43 didn’t differentiate, this was the crux of the case of R v A 2001.. where a boyfriend (used loosely) was prevented from introducing evidence that he had previously slept with the victim a week before, the ECJ held that only if sexual intercourse had taken place within a 48 hour period would it be relevant, anything outside of that window wasn’t relevant unless the circumstances in with the alleged offense took place were so similar. This 48 hour window brought a bit of clarity to the vague terminology of some of s41-43
> 
> ...




Did you join specifically to post that?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Too late.
> 
> But good post.



What it took you 4 only minutes to read it all? Nah, ain't buying it, you skimmed.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> What it took you 4 only minutes to read it all? Nah, ain't buying it, you skimmed.


Yep. A lot of it is cut from the appeal transcript. I've been reading it for the last 3 days!


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man Do you think he'll successfully sue his original legal team for millions of pounds?


----------



## Pac man (Oct 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Did you join specifically to post that?



Hi, yes.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Hi, s41-43 of the EJCEA intent was to abolish the introduction of any evidence of the sexual history of the victim, as this had been used previously to undermine her credibility. So section 41 prevented the cross examination of the victims sexual history if its intent was to show promiscuity, undermine her credibility and just blatantly attack her character, however in a trail the credibility of both parties will be questioned to some extent. What section 41 didn’t do was abolish “similar fact evidence” “relevant evidence” or refuse evidence which might result in an unfair trial under Article 6. S41 was and still is a restrictive statute according to many Criminal Evidence scholars as it also prevented any previous sexual history between the accused and the victim.
> 
> S41-43 didn’t differentiate, this was the crux of the case of R v A 2001.. where a boyfriend (used loosely) was prevented from introducing evidence that he had previously slept with the victim a week before, the ECJ held that only if sexual intercourse had taken place within a 48 hour period would it be relevant, anything outside of that window wasn’t relevant unless the circumstances in with the alleged offense took place were so similar. This 48 hour window brought a bit of clarity to the vague terminology of some of s41-43
> 
> ...



This new poster presents his speculation as fact, in similar terms to those associated with the Evans campaign.  But I've been over and over this with other posters who appear to hold similarly dodgy agendas, so can't  be arsed to go through this line by line, pointing out the mistakes of fact and law.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I've been reading it for the last 3 days!



You must be nearly at the end now.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 18, 2016)

trashpony said:


> They didn't actually - McDonald wasn't called


That's is very strange. As the only other person in the room you'd have thought the prosecution would have called him. Unless it didn't help their case!


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 18, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Er it is a drug



It's a drink, obvs.


----------



## belboid (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> The only reason these witness statements were not introduced earlier was that for the first trial Evans lawyers failed to question witnesses about the victims actions and words that she had used during intercourse with them as the lawyers mistakenly thought this would be barred under s41 under previous sexual history, so they didn’t think to ask the relevant questions to the witnesses


That's not actually true, is it? The solicitors say they routinely ask such a question, although there was no record of them having done so on this occasion. Which - given the skimpy nature of the extant notes - could mean they asked it and got the answer 'nothing'.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 18, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I think we should remember there are victims of sexual violence on this board and on this very thread. They can speak for themselves, but I doubt they find this infantile point scoring to be particularly helpful.



Also this. I'm one of those people and appreciate you saying this.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> You must be nearly at the end now.


 That's quite funny.

For you.


----------



## Pac man (Oct 18, 2016)

bimble said:


> Pac man Do you think he'll successfully sue his original legal team for millions of pounds?



Hi, I dont know if there would be suffient evidence to mount a claim in negligence against his legal team who initially faild to folow the relevant lines of enquiry, explainable really all things considered, its a bit flipant of me to previouslty suggest incompetence, they thoight it was a bit of an open and shut case and were a bit suprised at his conviction iirc.


----------



## Pac man (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> This new poster presents his speculation as fact, in similar terms to those associated with the Evans campaign.  But I've been over and over this with other posters who appear to hold similarly dodgy agendas, so can't  be arsed to go through this line by line, pointing out the mistakes of fact and law.



Hello to you too lol


----------



## keybored (Oct 18, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Er it is a drug


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Hi, yes.


How did you find this discussion?


----------



## killer b (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> How did you find this discussion?


AN INSATIABLE THIRST FOR SPREADING THE TRUTH.


----------



## Pac man (Oct 18, 2016)

belboid said:


> That's not actually true, is it? The solicitors say they routinely ask such a question, although there was no record of them having done so on this occasion. Which - given the skimpy nature of the extant notes - could mean they asked it and got the answer 'nothing'.



Not sure about that tbh, the witnesses were both of good character, are you suggesting that they perverted the course of justice and fabricated their accounts? The court didnt think so, they were both credible. I think its more likely that the solicitors didnt investigate the previous sexual history in any detail due to the perception it would be barred under s41. Thats a more likely scenario to me.


----------



## Pac man (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> How did you find this discussion?



Have I done something wrong?


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> How did you find this discussion?


exasperating probably.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Have I done something wrong?


Not at all. Just curious how a first time poster found this particular punch-up on the net!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Not sure about that tbh, the witnesses were both of good character, are you suggesting that they perverted the course of justice and fabricated their accounts? The court didnt think so, they were both credible. I think its more likely that the solicitors didnt investigate the previous sexual history in any detail due to the perception it would be barred under s41. Thats a more likely scenario to me.




One of the witnesses thought that X was a gold digger when he found out that CE was being pursued on a rape charge. He thought this because he slept with x two weeks after. Good character? Judgemental arsehole? Dodgey attitudes?

With regard the possibility of fabricating evidence...What do you think about the 50k offer and the fact that their detailed evidence was used after CE's testimony had become public?


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> I think its more likely that the solicitors didnt investigate the previous sexual history in any detail due to the perception it would be barred under s41. Thats a more likely scenario to me.



That appears to be at odds with the solicitor's own account, as set out in para 18 of the transcript of the second appeal judgment; he appears to have given evidence that it would have been usual practce to ask about anything said during sex, but he has no recollection (or note) of the witness saying anything about X being vocal at that time.


----------



## belboid (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Not sure about that tbh, the witnesses were both of good character, are you suggesting that they perverted the course of justice and fabricated their accounts? The court didnt think so, they were both credible. I think its more likely that the solicitors didnt investigate the previous sexual history in any detail due to the perception it would be barred under s41. Thats a more likely scenario to me.


You're not exactly unbiased tho, are you? Para 18 contradicts your claim quite strongly


----------



## Pac man (Oct 18, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> One of the witnesses thought that X was a gold digger when he found out tha CE was being pursued on a rape charge. He thought this because he slept with x two weeks after. Good character? Judgemental arsehole? Dodgey attitudes?
> 
> With regard the possibility of fabricating evidence...What do you think about the 50k offer and the fact that their detailed evidence was used after CE's testimony had become public?



No point in second guessing the judges and jury, Id go as far as suggesting that its almost ludicrious to suggest that anybody let alone two other men would want to publicly give evidence in a rape trial and fabricate evidence for money if they are of good character, the thought is really very flimsy..People dont generally have the confidence to give evidence let alone base a whole testimony they are not forced to give on fabrications and for a share of a poxy 50k vs the risk of proson for perveting the course of justice for a rapsit..no chance is what i honestly think.

With regarsds to why the witness came forward later, i belive that the sexual dominance of the alleged victim with the witnesss a short time after the alleged rape was so out of character with somebody who had just been raped that he felt compelled to come forward. This is indeed judgmental but bares no baring on the facts.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> That appears to be at odds with the solicitor's own account, as set out in para 18 of the transcript of the second appeal judgment; he appears to have given evidence that it would have been usual practce to ask about anything said during sex, but he has no recollection (or note) of the witness saying anything about X being vocal at that time.


Witness says that he wasn't asked for any such detail at time of first trial. Maybe he was lying about that, and they did ask him, and he answered, but nobody wrote it down, or they lost the notes. That requires you to believe that at least 1 lie and 1 bungle took place though, instead of just one bungle.

Hanlon's razor - Wikipedia


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> With regarsds to why the witness came forward later, i belive that the sexual dominance of the alleged victim with the witnesss a short time after the alleged rape was so out of character with somebody who had just been raped that he felt compelled to come forward. .



Can you explain what you mean here?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Id go as far as suggesting that its almost ludicrious to suggest that anybody let alone two other men would want to publicly give evidence in a rape trial and fabricate evidence for money if they are of good character, the thought is really very flimsy..People dont generally have the confidence to give evidence let alone base a whole testimony they are not forced to give on fabrications and for a share of a poxy 50k vs the risk of proson for perveting the course of justice for a rapsit..no chance is what i honestly think.


I'm surprised this has been given more credence here. It was also brought up by Vaughan, and the judges _seem_ to have agreed too.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> No point in second guessing the judges and jury, Id go as far as suggesting that its almost ludicrious to suggest that anybody let alone two other men would want to publicly give evidence in a rape trial and fabricate evidence for money if they are of good character, the thought is really very flimsy..People dont generally have the confidence to give evidence let alone base a whole testimony they are not forced to give on fabrications and for a share of a poxy 50k vs the risk of proson for perveting the course of justice for a rapsit..no chance is what i honestly think.
> 
> With regarsds to why the witness came forward later, i belive that the sexual dominance of the alleged victim with the witnesss a short time after the alleged rape was so out of character with somebody who had just been raped that he felt compelled to come forward. This is indeed judgmental but bares no baring on the facts.



I don't know whether they did or not.  But they'd not have to fabricate much; just add that crucial detail about her being vocal and liking doggie.  (Which detail didn't appear in their statements until after Evans' account was in the public domain, and after the offer of a reward.)  And, if they had made that up, it couldn't be proved - it'd be her word against theirs - so not much of a risk.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

bimble said:


> Witness says that he wasn't asked for any such detail at time of first trial. Maybe he was lying about that, and they did ask him, and he answered, but nobody wrote it down, or they lost the notes. That requires you to believe that at least 1 lie and 1 bungle took place though, instead of just one bungle.
> 
> Hanlon's razor - Wikipedia



Or maybe he answered, but there was nothing to write down, becasue he didn't report her using those words.  Occams razor!


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> I don't know whether they did or not.  But they'd not have to fabricate much; just add that crucial detail about her being vocal and liking doggie.  (Which detail didn't appear in their statements until after Evans' account was in the public domain, and after the offer of a reward.)  And, if they had made that up, it couldn't be proved - it'd be her word against theirs - so not much of a risk.


How many people would need to be complicit in it though? All conspiring to pervert the course of justice.


----------



## Pac man (Oct 18, 2016)

belboid said:


> You're not exactly unbiased tho, are you? Para 18 contradicts your claim quite strongly



I am unbiased, the CCRC found Rilpey hadnt made any notes whatsoever on whether the victim said anything during sex, the question cant have been asked because there wasnt even a "nothing" answer.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> Or maybe he answered, but there was nothing to write down, becausue he didn't report her using those words.  Occams razor!


No, you're not using either razor.  The people who are convinced that both witnesses lied under oath for money and that the footballers both lied too are creating a far more complicated scenario than the facts as far as we know them suggest. Which is fair enough if that's what you are convinced is the case but its certainly not the simplest explanation.


----------



## belboid (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> With regarsds to why the witness came forward later, i belive that the sexual dominance of the alleged victim with the witnesss a short time after the alleged rape was so out of character with somebody who had just been raped that he felt compelled to come forward. This is indeed judgmental but bares no baring on the facts.


Funny that he didn't mention how vocal she (supposedly) was straight away then. If it all surprised him so much. I'm not convinced your theories hang together


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> How many people would need to be complicit in it though? All conspiring to pervert the course of justice.



Three: one of those close to the Evans campaign and the two witnesses (and two of them wouldn't have to conspire with each other i.e. the two witnesses).


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> I am unbiased, the CCRC found Rilpey hadnt made any notes whatsoever on whether the victim said anything during sex, the question cant have been asked because there wasnt even a "nothing" answer.



Not a sound conclusion.  People often fail to note negative responses.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

bimble said:


> No, you're not using either razor.  The people who are convinced that both witnesses lied under oath for money and that the footballers both lied too are creating a far more complicated scenario than the facts as far as we know them suggest. Which is fair enough if that's what you are convinced is the case but its certainly not the simplest explanation.



FWIW, I'm not one of those people; I don't know whether they did or not.  That they might is not a significant part of my objection to the CoA's decision in this case.


----------



## belboid (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> I am unbiased, the CCRC found Rilpey hadnt made any notes whatsoever on whether the victim said anything during sex, the question cant have been asked because there wasnt even a "nothing" answer.


Oh dear. No one is unbiased, and those claiming to be so are usually the dodgiest of the lot. 

The judgement says that the notes are sparse, which means it could well be the case that they simply didn't write down 'non answers'


----------



## hegley (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> It should be noted that the witnesses had very little contact with Evans and his circle,


But this isn't true is it. Ripley didn't have an email address so correspondence with him from the defence solicitors went via a friend of Ched Evans in the first instance, and then via Ched Evans' sister. It was a friend of Ched Evans that originally suggested to Ripley talk to the defence team. Which, by any stretch of the imagination, isn't "very little contact".


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

anecdote: I went to the old bailey this morning to hear the summing up in the case of the murder / manslaughter/ accident  that happened in my street last summer.
It was really interesting to hear how the judge explained to the jury what their duty was - after summing up all the evidence she stressed the importance of _beyond reasonable doubt_, several times, impressing on them the importance of that idea.

In the case of Evans a lot of people seem willing to just chuck that whole principle away, but it is kind of vital.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> Three: one of those close to the Evans campaign and the two witnesses (and two of them wouldn't have to conspire with each other i.e. the two witnesses).


At least three. Possibly a few more when you consider the need to eventually pay the bribe. But there's at least one bloke who has the ability to grass them for years to come, plus anyone he might tell etc, etc.

Perhaps people who are prepared to take that risk do exist, but the chances that two such people were X's recent sexual partners ...


----------



## belboid (Oct 18, 2016)

bimble said:


> No, you're not using either razor.  The people who are convinced that both witnesses lied under oath for money and that the footballers both lied too are creating a far more complicated scenario than the facts as far as we know them suggest. Which is fair enough if that's what you are convinced is the case but its certainly not the simplest explanation.


It's not a very complicated scenario, is it? Especially when we know the gf was waving 50k under witnesses noses


----------



## Pac man (Oct 18, 2016)

belboid said:


> Funny that he didn't mention how vocal she (supposedly) was straight away then. If it all surprised him so much. I'm not convinced your theories hang together



I think too much weight is been given to what she said, it was more than that as the witness said she took the lead, was forceful at times intintiated oral sex and dictated the sexual posissons. He came forward and gave his account, it was more her behaviour than the words she used, and for that reason i think his testimon was overlooked due to perceptions of it being barred unders 41, so it wasnt "thoroughly explored", which is nothing new.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

belboid said:


> It's not a very complicated scenario, is it? Especially when we know the gf was waving 50k under witnesses noses


I just said its more complicated. Requires you to believe a lot more unproven things than the alternative.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> At least three. Possibly a few more when you consider the need to eventually pay the bribe. But there's at least one bloke who has the ability to grass them for years to come, plus anyone he might tell etc, etc.
> 
> Perhaps people who are prepared to take that risk do exist, but the chances that two such people were X's recent sexual partners ...



You asked "would need to be", to which the answer is three, but, yes, it's possible there were more.

And they'd probably realise that anyone who could grass would likely be implicating themselves. 

People take much bigger risks for a lot less!


----------



## belboid (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> At least three. Possibly a few more when you consider the need to eventually pay the bribe. But there's at least one bloke who has the ability to grass them for years to come, plus anyone he might tell etc, etc.
> 
> Perhaps people who are prepared to take that risk do exist, but the chances that two such people were X's recent sexual partners ...


Not so, the other party wouldn't need to know any statements weren't true. They might know but there is no need for them to do so.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> I think too much weight is been given to what she said, it was more than that as the witness said she took the lead, was forceful at times intintiated oral sex and dictated the sexual posissons. He came forward and gave his account, it was more her behaviour than the words she used, and for that reason i think his testimon was overlooked due to perceptions of it being barred unders 41, so it wasnt "thoroughly explored", which is nothing new.



You have no basis for this. You've just plucked it from nowhere!


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> You asked "would need to be", to which the answer is three, but, yes, it's possible there were more.
> 
> And they'd probably realise that anyone who could grass would likely be implicating themselves.
> 
> People take much bigger risks for a lot less!



Would it be very rude to use the word conspiracy theory here?


----------



## killer b (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> You have no basis for this. You've just plucked it from nowhere!


I think he's having a wank.


----------



## killer b (Oct 18, 2016)

All these gross men drooling as they pore over the intimate details of a teenagers sex life.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

killer b said:


> All these gross men drooling as they pore over the intimate details of a teenagers sex life.


Yes. It's very ugly. It is the fault of the police and the CPS though. They started it, because a distressed young woman came in to report that she'd lost her handbag. I don't understand how anyone can think the authorities here did the right thing, were on the side of justice and minimising harm.


----------



## belboid (Oct 18, 2016)

No, investigating scenarios which are incredibly common results of rape and other sexual abuse is just silly, isn't it?


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

belboid said:


> No, investigating scenarios which are incredibly common results of rape and other sexual abuse is just silly, isn't it?


So you think it's a coincidence that in this particular case it was a famous millionaire footballer involved; The police and CPS would have shown the same intense interest in forensically reconstructing her night that she had no memory of had it turned out to have been just some bloke/s.


----------



## belboid (Oct 18, 2016)

bimble said:


> So you think it's a coincidence that in this particular case it was a famous millionaire footballer who they discovered had booked the room: The police and CPS would have shown the same intense interest in her night had it been just some bloke/s.


Yes, actually.  When this case started there had just been a similar one locally where a bloke had 'picked up' an incredibly drunk girl after a night out, followed her and.....she didn't remember, because she was utterly pissed. But they eventually pieced together enough information, and got him to tell a bunch of what became obvious lies, so that he got sent down for rape.  It's a sadly all too common way that certain scumbags commit rape, because they know they've got such a bloody good chance of getting away with it.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

belboid said:


> Yes, actually.  When this case started there had just been a similar one locally where a bloke had 'picked up' an incredibly drunk girl after a night out, followed her and.....she didn't remember, because she was utterly pissed. But they eventually pieced together enough information, and got him to tell a bunch of what became obvious lies, so that he got sent down for rape.  It's a sadly all too common way that certain scumbags commit rape, because they know they've got such a bloody good chance of getting away with it.


ok. Didn't know that. That's good, the local police deserve more respect given that. Retracted.


----------



## hegley (Oct 18, 2016)

bimble said:


> Yes. It's very ugly. It is the fault of the police and the CPS though.


Nothing to do with his so called mates who've named her time and again on social media to the extent that she's had to move several times.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

bimble said:


> Would it be very rude to use the word conspiracy theory here?


Not rude, but certainly reaching. Anyone approaching the case from a neutral stance is bound to consider that possibility, in the circumstances.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

bimble said:


> So you think it's a coincidence that in this particular case it was a famous millionaire footballer involved; The police and CPS would have shown the same intense interest in forensically reconstructing her night that she had no memory of had it turned out to have been just some bloke/s.



Similarly, you have to wonder whether he'd have been acquitted if he was Joe Public/light on funds.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

hegley said:


> Nothing to do with his so called mates who've named her time and again on social media to the extent that she's had to move several times.


They started it is all i meant. But belboid 's new info above gives me reason to shut up about the local police.


----------



## planetgeli (Oct 18, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Maybe quick from blood but not hair or urine How long do drugs stay in your system? - Drug and Alcohol Information and Support in Ireland - Drugs.ie



10/10 for pedantry, and yes, you're correct. All except for the fact that the reports state that, as is normal in sample testing, BLOOD tests were taken from all involved in the case.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 18, 2016)

bimble said:


> They started it is all i meant. But belboid 's new info above gives me reason to shut up about the local police.


No, Evans and McDonald started it


----------



## planetgeli (Oct 18, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> It's not a drug and it dosen't.



Er, alcohol is a drug and leaves the blood stream within 10-12 hours.

You have just lost any credibility you may have had.

Are you deliberately making a challenge for most ridiculous post in the thread?


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> No, Evans and McDonald started it


I might not agree with you but think I get where you're coming from, that their behaviour was so morally reprehensable that in your opinion the police were right to start an investigation along those lines.


----------



## bemused (Oct 18, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> Er, alcohol is a drug and leaves the blood stream within 10-12 hours.



I often wonder at what point it will become socially unacceptable to go out with your friends for the evening then let them wander off alone shit faced?


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

bimble said:


> I might not agree with you but think I get where you're coming from, that their behaviour was so morally reprehensable that in your opinion the police were right to start an investigation along those lines.



They would have been right to start an investigation if they had reasonabe grounds to suspect that a crime had been commited. We don't know the police's rationale, and the factors they took into consideration.  But the fact that there were ultimately grounds to charge, and to avoid any sucessful submission of no case to answer at the end of the prosecution case (twice), would seem to vindicate their decision.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

bemused said:


> I often wonder at what point it will become socially unacceptable to go out with your friends for the evening then let them wander off alone shit faced?



When Evans is around.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 18, 2016)

bimble said:


> They started it is all i meant. But belboid 's new info above gives me reason to shut up about the local police.



Don't be so quick to let them off the hook. Ask yourself first what the  population of Rhyl is?


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> When Evans is around.


There are thousands of Evanses everywhere, opportunists who see women as things to be used, and there are also thousands of young women on any given Saturday night out drunk / high. As I see it the question at the heart of this case is where is the line where we all can agree that a crime has been committed when these two meet.
If she had made an accusation I would not be here at all and the case would probably have proceeded differently, but she didn't. Which is what makes X a sort of blank slate / test case for all of our prejudices.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> With regarsds to why the witness came forward later, i belive that the sexual dominance of the alleged victim with the witnesss a short time after the alleged rape was so out of character with somebody who had just been raped that he felt compelled to come forward. This is indeed judgmental but bares no baring on the facts.



Except that what constitutes "out of character" during or soon after a traumatic event, is incredibly hard to determine. What is common to trauma is peri-and post-traumatic dissociation or similar behaviour-warping psychological protections.

As for what you believe, your beliefs are irrelevant. In your own words they have "no baring [sic] on the facts".


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Don't be so quick to let them off the hook. Ask yourself first what the  population of Rhyl is?


Some 25,000 souls apparently. What's your point? That the police were onto a juicy headline winning case instead of the usual drudgery ? That's what I thought too, but willing to stand corrected as per the belboid


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

bimble said:


> There are thousands of Evanses everywhere, opportunists who see women as things to be used, and there are also thousands of young women on any given Saturday night out drunk / high. As I see it the question at the heart of this case is where is the line where we all can agree that a crime has been committed when these two meet.
> If she had made an accusation I would not be here at all and the case would probably have proceeded differently, but she didn't, which is what makes X a sort of blank slate / test case for all of our prejudices.



It also means those thousands of young men now know they need just get a woman so drunk that she can't remember whether or not she consented, and find someone else willing to say they've had sex with her (and bung in some salacious details), and they're home and dry.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> It also means those thousands of young men now know they need just get a woman so drunk that she can't remember whether or not she consented, and find someone else willing to say they've had sex with her (and bung in some salacious details), and they're home and dry.


I totally agree with you that this high profile failed case brought by the state has been a disaster in every way for x and for women in general.
His being found guilty and then being cleared are both pretty much incidental to the damage done.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 18, 2016)

bimble said:


> Some 25,000 souls apparently. What's your point? That the police were onto a juicy headline winning case instead of the usual drudgery ? That's what I thought too, but willing to stand corrected as per the belboid



My point is she phoned police to report a missing handbag. It was they who persuaded her down the criminal route. They did so in the full knowledge her identity would have been in the public domain within weeks or days. But they had targets to meet. Alternatively they thought it was about time a couple of big time Charley's were brought down a peg or two. Not forgetting either that careers might be enhanced by a high profile collar. Whatever the combination of (win,win,win) factors involved their concern for her welfare can be put at about zero. Collateral damage.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2016)

planetgeli said:


> 10/10 for pedantry, and yes, you're correct. All except for the fact that the reports state that, as is normal in sample testing, BLOOD tests were taken from all involved in the case.


Yeh. If I was being pedantic I'd have pointed out your information not wholly accurate


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> My point is she phoned police to report a missing handbag. It was they who persuaded her down the criminal route. They did so in the full knowledge her identity would have been in the public domain within weeks or days. But they had targets to meet. Alternatively they thought it was about time a couple of big time Charley's were brought down a peg or two. Not forgetting either that careers might be enhanced by a high profile collar. Whatever the combination of (win,win,win) factors involved their concern for her welfare can be put at about zero. Collateral damage.


Add to that, _she didn't want the case brought._


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> My point is she phoned police to report a missing handbag. It was they who persuaded her down the criminal route. They did so in the full knowledge her identity would have been in the public domain within weeks or days. But they had targets to meet. Alternatively they thought it was about time a couple of big time Charley's were brought down a peg or two. Not forgetting either that careers might be enhanced by a high profile collar. Whatever the combination of (win,win,win) factors involved their concern for her welfare can be put at about zero. Collateral damage.


My instinct is to agree with you on this, it is hard to believe they had her interests at heart, but for Belboid's post above, which does suggest that the police there in Rhyl is seriously interested in this sort of thing and willing to put time into it even when no footballers are involved.

Does anyone know where her handbag was - did it turn up? 
Just occurred to me that was she missing her phone when she woke up?  If she hadn't been missing her handbag she might have phoned a friend instead of going to the police station.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> ... But they had targets to meet. Alternatively they thought it was about time a couple of big time Charley's were brought down a peg or two. Not forgetting either that careers might be enhanced by a high profile collar. ...



Pure speculation.  They might just as easily chosen to pursue it becasue they had a stack of itelligence reports to suggest that Evans and McDonald regularly raped women.  You don't know one way or the other.  But you choose to belive one interpretation, without any evidence, becasue it suits your agenda.  Transparent.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> My point is she phoned police to report a missing handbag. It was they who persuaded her down the criminal route. They did so in the full knowledge her identity would have been in the public domain within weeks or days. But they had targets to meet. Alternatively they thought it was about time a couple of big time Charley's were brought down a peg or two. Not forgetting either that careers might be enhanced by a high profile collar. Whatever the combination of (win,win,win) factors involved their concern for her welfare can be put at about zero. Collateral damage.


Tbh I'd have thought it a bit of a gamble if they believed careers might be enhanced as an embarrassing failure could ruin said careers.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> You don't know one way or the other.  But you choose to belive one interpretation, without any evidence, becasue it suits your agenda.  Transparent.


As do you Athos. Or are you just right, morally right, no speculation and no agenda involved.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 18, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> You have a lot to say how a court works clearly without ever having been in one.


Please answer the question.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 18, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> Please answer the question.



He doesn't like the question so he'll dodge as per.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

bimble said:


> As do you Athos. Or are you just right, morally right, no speculation and no agenda involved.



No I don't; I've said that I don't know the police's rationale for pursuing the case.  I've not chosen to believe one of a number of possible explnations which best suits my agenda.

Nothing in the arguments I've advanced is predicated on speculation; the only times I've advanced speculation is to demonstrate that two could play that game - at no time have I relied upon it.


----------



## bemused (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> It also means those thousands of young men now know they need just get a woman so drunk that she can't remember whether or not she consented, and find someone else willing to say they've had sex with her (and bung in some salacious details), and they're home and dry.



Do you really believe men look at this case I think 'blimey, that's how I get away with rape'?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> You have a lot to say how a court works clearly without ever having been in one.


I've been in lots of courts: mags - Haringey, Highbury, Barnet, Horseferry Rd, clerkenwell, Neasden; crown - blackfriars, Southwark, Snaresbrook, Harrow, Wallington; courts of justice. I think I've a reasonable notion how a court works.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

bemused said:


> Do you really believe men look at this case I think 'blimey, that's how I get away with rape'?



I think they get a very clear message that they can away with having sex with a woman who is so drunk she won't remember anything, which, in many cases could be used as a cover for rape.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> i belive that the sexual dominance of the alleged victim with the witnesss a short time after the alleged rape was so out of character with somebody who had just been raped that he felt compelled to come forward.


Unbiased? Bullshit. 

There is a huge amount of evidence that rape victims often seek sexual encounters that they are in control of shortly after being raped. But obviously that doesn't fit with the slags don't get raped narrative you're writing


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2016)

bemused said:


> Do you really believe men look at this case I think 'blimey, that's how I get away with rape'?


First take £50,000...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 18, 2016)

bemused said:


> Do you really believe men look at this case I think 'blimey, that's how I get away with rape'?



The kind of men that book hotel rooms for their mates, then wait for a text saying 'i've got a girl; before heading over there to have sex. Yep, exactly those kinds of men.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Unbiased? Bullshit.
> 
> There is a huge amount of evidence that rape victims often seek sexual encounters that they are in control of shortly after being raped. But obviously that doesn't fit with the slags don't get raped narrative you're writing



But she wasn't behaving how a rape victim was supposed to behave!


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> But you choose to belive one interpretation, without any evidence, becasue it suits your agenda.  Transparent.


Why does everyone who disagrees with you have to have "an agenda" (the implication being that they are serial misogynistic rape enablers)? Can't it just be possible that plenty of decent people think you're wrong too?

Did the appellate judges and and second trial jury have "an agenda" too?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Why does everyone who disagrees with you have to have "an agenda" (the implication being that they are serial misogynistic rape enablers)? Can't it just be possible that plenty of decent people think you're wrong too?
> 
> Did the appellate judges and and second trial jury have "an agenda" too?


And the ccrc


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 18, 2016)

trashpony said:


> Unbiased? Bullshit.
> 
> There is a huge amount of evidence that rape victims often seek sexual encounters that they are in control of shortly after being raped. But obviously that doesn't fit with the slags don't get raped narrative you're writing



But why are you trying to complicate things with possiblities and detail? Supposedly it's really quite simple. Thick people like us should just accept that. Anti-feminists that we are. :/


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Why does everyone who disagrees with you have to have "an agenda" (the implication being that they are serial misogynistic rape enablers)? Can't it just be possible that plenty of decent people think you're wrong too?
> 
> Did the appellate judges and and second trial jury have "an agenda" too?



No, but then the judges in the CoA and the second jury didn't show such determination to construt new arguments to support the same conclusion as the previous ones were cut away.  Nor did they misrepresent what the evidence said.  Nor did they speculate about stuff which it would have been improper for them to consider. Nor did they bend over backwards to interpret everything in Evans' favour.


----------



## bemused (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> I think they get a very clear message that they can away with having sex with a woman who is so drunk she won't remember anything, which, in many cases could be used as a cover for rape.



So you do think that men will think it's a guide how to get away with rape?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> No, but then the judges in the CoA and the second jury didn't show such determination to construt new arguments to support the same conclusion as the previous ones were cut away.  Nor did they misrepresent what the evidence said.  Nor did they speculate about stuff which it would have been improper for them to consider.


Oh no, are we back to this again? 

Looks like we are going to go again after all.

Totally dishonest of you.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

bemused said:


> So you do think that men will think it's a guide how to get away with rape?



I think that some will see it that way; many others will just have the message reinforced that it's very hard to be convicted of rape if you say there was consent.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Oh no, are we back to this again?
> 
> Looks like we are going to go again after all.
> 
> Totally dishonest of you.



No, we're not.  I really don't want to get drawn into this with you again; we've been there, and it was fruitless; and we've been asked to stop.  I should never have replied to you.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> I think they get a very clear message that they can away with having sex with a woman who is so drunk she won't remember anything, which, in many cases could be used as a cover for rape.



Yeah, if they're willing to risk a couple of years in prison and being denounced by the world at large as an utter scumbag, forever.

I honestly think that the only potential silver lining here is that just maybe the opposite is true - a lot of men will have read about this case and will now not risk sleeping with a drunk woman they've only just met.

One of the ugliest pro-Evans tweets I saw was_ "drunk women are cancer"_. It was retweeted lots of times. Like it or not, that's not 'a rapists charter'.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

bimble said:


> Yeah, if they're willing to risk a couple of years in prison and being denounced by the world at large as utter scumbag. I honestly think that the only silver lining here is that just maybe the opposite is true - some men will have read about this case and will now not risk sleeping with a drunk woman they've only just met.



A few minutes ago you thouht this case had been a disaster for women.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Add to that, _she didn't want the case brought._



Precisely. But thereafter she had no choice but to follow the path laid down for her by _them_. They were in charge. She was no longer victim, but _their_ primary witness. So conservative attitudes with regard to social/sexual criteria to enhance the possibility of conviction would be encouraged.

Essentially she would have been coached - conditioned if you like - by both police/CPS as to what might or might not be_ '_helpful_' _to volunteer. So if for example Evans claimed X did such on such on the night in the question, the pressure would be on her to say she never ever would do 'such and such': not that kind of girl and so forth - even to the police/CPS.

And this reflex would be in operation long before she ever set foot in the witness box.

Once there, the danger under cross-examination is too go too far: to try and be too goody goody and get tripped up. Which is why the introduction of other lovers proved so devastating to her credibility in the end.   _ 
_


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> A few minutes ago you thouht this case had been a disaster for women.


I am looking for the positive. My personal view is that its a disaster. Post above was to counter the idea that it will make men more likely to have sex with drunk women.
I think it will make them less likely to do so. For fear of being put in prison for a couple of years.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> No, we're not.  I really don't want to get drawn into this with you again; we've been there, and it was fruitless; and we've been asked to stop.  I should never have replied to you.


More like you should never have tried it on. You're attempting to bolster your position on our disagreement by stealth. You proved none of what you suggested and have accused absolutely everyone who has disagreed with you on this thread of _having an agenda_ in attempt to shut down debate. Not just me.

Dishonest bollocks.


----------



## belboid (Oct 18, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> My point is she phoned police to report a missing handbag. It was they who persuaded her down the criminal route. They did so in the full knowledge her identity would have been in the public domain within weeks or days. But they had targets to meet. Alternatively they thought it was about time a couple of big time Charley's were brought down a peg or two. Not forgetting either that careers might be enhanced by a high profile collar. Whatever the combination of (win,win,win) factors involved their concern for her welfare can be put at about zero. Collateral damage.


She didn't go 'down the criminal route', it wasn't her decision to make. The police investigated and found someone in a situation often connected with rape and sexual assault. They investigated further and found that the woman had been picked up by one men and then joined by another. He admitted to lying any being deceptive to get what he wanted. The two of them also told the police about their two friends who were filming them through the window. There is very clearly potential for abuse to be happening. Add in the fact that she was very obviously drunk and staggering and it's pretty obvious  there could be a case to answer. 

Remind me just when you think they should have stopped bothering


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> ... Essentially she would have been coached - conditioned if you like - by both police/CPS as to what might or might not be_ '_helpful_' _to volunteer. So if for example Evans claimed X did such on such on the night in the question, the pressure would be on her to say she never ever would do 'such and such': not that kind of girl and so forth - even to the police/CPS



More evidence-free speculation.




Joe Reilly said:


> Once there the pressure under cross-examination is too go too far: to try and be too goody goody and get tripped up. Which is why the introduction of other lovers proved so devastating to her credibility in the end.



This wasn't about her credibility, since she'd never claimed not to have consented.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

belboid said:


> They investigated further and found that the woman had been picked up by one men and then joined by another. *He admitted to lying any being deceptive to get what he wanted. *


What does this mean? (lying to get what he wanted)? 

Also, what makes you say she was 'picked up'? Rather than that she met someone?


----------



## belboid (Oct 18, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Precisely. But thereafter she had no choice but to follow the path laid down for her by _them_. They were in charge. She was no longer victim, but _their_ primary witness. So conservative attitudes with regard to social/sexual criteria to enhance the possibility of conviction would be encouraged.
> 
> Essentially she would have been coached - conditioned if you like - by both police/CPS as to what might or might not be_ '_helpful_' _to volunteer. So if for example Evans claimed X did such on such on the night in the question, the pressure would be on her to say she never ever would do 'such and such': not that kind of girl and so forth - even to the police/CPS.
> 
> ...


Wow. It's all a cruel plot against...who exactly?


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

belboid said:


> Wow. It's all a cruel plot against...who exactly?


I think Joe Reilly is saying that if x was not beyond reasonable doubt a victim of the footballers she was certainly in effect a victim of the legal system.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> More like you should never have tried it on. You're attempting to bolster your position on our disagreement by stealth. You proved none of what you suggested and have accused absolutely everyone who has disagreed with you on this thread of _having an agenda_ in attempt to shut down debate.
> 
> Dishonest bollocks.



Ok, that's your opinion, and I know it won't change.  Obviously, I disagree.  In any event, anyone who's interested to see what happened in our disagreement can read it for themselves, and I'm happy for them to reach their own conclusion.

But, given we've been asked by victims of sexual violence not to continue this spat, how about we agree to drop it?  Let's resist the temptation to refer or reply to one another on this thread, eh?


----------



## trashpony (Oct 18, 2016)

<ahem> Spymaster - you said you were going to take it to PMs?

I just wanted to point this out to the thread as it seems to be dominated by men: 
Nearly every woman I know has experienced sexual assault or rape - probably about 95%. Actually it's very unusual for a woman *not *to have experienced it. IME this fact comes as a surprise to men but nearly all of us have been groped or grabbed or had their boundaries pushed further than she was comfortable. A lot of men are very uninterested in whether a woman is enthusiastic or not. We just don't talk about it - partly because it's so quotidian, partly because we don't want to be given the 3rd degree about what we were doing to provoke it.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 18, 2016)

I'm not sure if this has been reported but seriously come on you guys.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 18, 2016)

This wasn't about her credibility, since she'd never claimed not to have consented.[/QUOTE]

True, but it would have been implied, if not openly stated, that if she had her full wits about her, she would never have had sex with a total stranger regardless of the circumstances: drunk or sober. So when former lover a) steps up and says they had sex after meeting in a club etc it would have been regarded as a slam dunk.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> Ok, that's your opinion, and I know it won't change.  Obviously, I disagree.  In any event, anyone who's interested to see what happened in our disagreement can read it for themselves, and I'm happy for them to reach their own conclusion.
> 
> But, given we've been asked by victims of sexual violence not to continue this spat, how about we agree to drop it?  Let's resist the temptation to refer or reply to one another on this thread, eh?


Well it was interesting to see the way you dismissed Pac Man's first post, part of which went a fair way to removing the primary pillar of your position, as 'already dealt with' and 'agenda driven'. You swerved it well. 

Anyway, yes. Let's leave it there.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I'm not sure if this has been reported but seriously come on you guys.


I was posting the last one as you were this.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> True, but it would have been implied, if not openly stated, that if she had her full wits about her, she would never have had sex with a total stranger regardless of the circumstances: drunk or sober. So when former lover a) steps up and says they had sex after meeting in a club etc it would have been regarded as a slam dunk.



Again, you're just speculating.

And misrepresenting the evidence; neither of the two new witnesses said they had sex after meeting in a club - one had known her for years, and they other had been chatting with her online.

Plus, if the evidene was to be used that way, it ought ot have been inadmissible under s.41!


----------



## bemused (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> I think that some will see it that way[..]



Some or thousands, surely you don't think someone who hadn't thought about raping people would be inspired to do so? 

I don't think normal people look at this stuff and think 'I'll have some of that' I believe the overwhelming majority looking at it with disgust and empathy in equal measure.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Anyway, yes. Let's leave it there.


Good plan.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

bemused said:


> Some or thousands, surely you don't think someone who hadn't thought about raping people would be inspired to do so?
> 
> I don't think normal people look at this stuff and think 'I'll have some of that' I believe the overwhelming majority looking at it with disgust and empathy in equal measure.



Sadly I don't share your faith; there's a lot of misogyny about (conscious and unconscious).  Maybe lots won't be directly inspired to rape, but it drip-feeds into a rape culture, nonetheless.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 18, 2016)

Fucking shut up all of you fucking men! Christ almighty


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 18, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> This wasn't about her credibility, since she'd never claimed not to have consented.
> 
> True, but it would have been implied, if not openly stated, that if she had her full wits about her, she would never have had sex with a total stranger regardless of the circumstances: drunk or sober. So when former lover a) steps up and says they had sex after meeting in a club etc it would have been regarded as a slam dunk.




Which _total _strangers are you talking about? the one she had known since childhood of someone she had been speaking to online?

'Slam dunk'...shame you are incapable of applying the same hard line with CE and M...both of which have shown themselves to be utter scumbags in the way they behaved.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> Plus, if the evidene was to be used that way, it ought ot have been inadmissible under s.41!



is 'ought to have been' not speculation as well?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 18, 2016)

bemused said:


> Some or thousands, surely you don't think someone who hadn't thought about raping people would be inspired to do so?
> 
> I don't think normal people look at this stuff and think 'I'll have some of that' I believe the overwhelming majority looking at it with disgust and empathy in equal measure.




As an aside but relevant I think you would do well to read some articles and reports about attitudes towards sexual abuse and rape amongst young people and the VALID concerns people have about how widespread abuse has become. There has been a noticable cultural shift and it's fucking terrifying.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> is 'ought to have been' not speculation as well?



No, that's what the law says.  Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, s,41(4):

For the purposes of subsection (3) no evidence or question shall be regarded as relating to a relevant issue in the case if it appears to the court to be reasonable to assume that the purpose (or main purpose) for which it would be adduced or asked is to establish or elicit material for impugning the credibility of the complainant as a witness.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 18, 2016)

bemused (in fact anybody who is interested)  have a look at the discussion on the unilad thread from a couple of years back to see some rape culture attitudes.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 18, 2016)

.


----------



## Pac man (Oct 18, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> Except that what constitutes "out of character" during or soon after a traumatic event, is incredibly hard to determine. What is common to trauma is peri-and post-traumatic dissociation or similar behaviour-warping psychological protections.
> 
> As for what you believe, your beliefs are irrelevant. In your own words they have "no baring [sic] on the facts".



Sorry if i mislead you there, I believe it was one of the witnesses that said her behaviour was out of character after he slept with her, his reason for coming forward was due to his belief that she acted strangely for somebody who had just recently been raped. They are the facts...


----------



## Wilf (Oct 18, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Precisely. But thereafter she had no choice but to follow the path laid down for her by _them_. They were in charge. She was no longer victim, but _their_ primary witness. So conservative attitudes with regard to social/sexual criteria to enhance the possibility of conviction would be encouraged.
> 
> Essentially she would have been coached - conditioned if you like - by both police/CPS as to what might or might not be_ '_helpful_' _to volunteer. So if for example Evans claimed X did such on such on the night in the question, the pressure would be on her to say she never ever would do 'such and such': not that kind of girl and so forth - even to the police/CPS.
> 
> ...


This is idea that the victims evidence was moulded and shaped is pure speculation. The possibility/probability that the 'new witnesses' had their contributions moulded into a narrative is much more significant - things remembered that weren't remembered before; details emerging after Evans own version was made public; emails being passed via Evans friends, the £50,000. Comparing the 2 processes, its her evidence I have most confidence in.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Sorry if i mislead you there, I believe it was one of the witnesses that said her behaviour was out of character after he slept with her, his reason for coming forward was due to his belief that she acted strangely for somebody who had just recently been raped. They are the facts...



Again, that's not "the facts", but one explanation for why he came forward.  Why do you take everything that supports Evans at face value?

And I wonder what qualifies him as an expert in what's strange behaviour for someone who has been raped.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Sorry if i mislead you there, I believe it was one of the witnesses that said her behaviour was out of character after he slept with her, his reason for coming forward was due to his belief that she acted strangely for somebody who had just recently been raped. They are the facts...


His opinion is not a fact. Nor is his mother's who is reportedly the person who told him that CE was being pursued for rape.

His conclusion was that she was a gold digger.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

Wilf said:


> its her evidence I have most confidence in.


What evidence? X is a woman who has had no chance to speak at all, her voice is totally absent far as I can see. She is silent. What has she said that you know of and have confidence in? Apart from that she cant remember and that she lost her bag.


----------



## Pac man (Oct 18, 2016)

bimble said:


> I totally agree with you that this high profile failed case brought by the state has been a disaster in every way for x and for women in general.
> 
> His being found guilty and then being cleared are both pretty much incidental to the damage done.



This was one of the most unsafe convictions in recent history, what a dangerous precedent it has set, now anybody who gets pissed and cant remeber what happened the next morning, can claim they were raped, when infact they may well have had fully consensual sex and simply cant remember. Its highly unlikely the vast majority of rape cases will ever need to address the issue of previous sexual history, unless similar fact evidence that is relevant is an issue, its not common place and so nothing about s41 EJCEA 1999 or the SAA 2003 have changed.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 18, 2016)




----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> This was one of the most unsafe convictions in recent history, what a dangerous precedent it has set, now anybody who gets pissed and cant remeber what happened the next morning, *can claim they were raped,* when infact they may well have had fully consensual sex and simply cant remember. Its highly unlikely the vast majority of rape cases will ever need to address the issue of previous sexual history, unless similar fact evidence that is relevant is an issue, its not common place and so nothing about s41 EJCEA 1999 or the SAA 2003 have changed.


Thing is that she never claimed that she was raped.
Your post is framed as if she did claim it, as if she was the actor in all of this. That is totally wrong and puts you in a very odd position.

I think I agree with you on the legal stuff and the seriously damaging implications of the precedent that was set by the original conviction.

But your wording above is really thoughtless.  She never claimed that she was raped. The fault lies with the police / CPS not with the woman.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 18, 2016)

bimble said:


> What evidence? X is a woman who has had no chance to speak at all, her voice is totally absent far as I can see. She is silent. What has she said that you know of and have confidence in? Apart from that she cant remember and that she lost her bag.


_Exactly that_ (her evidence wasn't quite as limited as you say, but yes, her key contribution was she couldn't remember the encounter). But Joe has other ideas, that she was _coached_ and _conditioned _and that she was pushed into telling a version of her own sex life invented by the prosecution. As you seem to be saying, that wasn't the case:



> Precisely. But thereafter she had no choice but to follow the path laid down for her by _them_. They were in charge. She was no longer victim, but _their_ primary witness. So conservative attitudes with regard to social/sexual criteria to enhance the possibility of conviction would be encouraged.
> 
> Essentially she would have been coached - conditioned if you like - by both police/CPS as to what might or might not be_ '_helpful_' _to volunteer. So if for example Evans claimed X did such on such on the night in the question, the pressure would be on her to say she never ever would do 'such and such': not that kind of girl and so forth - even to the police/CPS.
> 
> ...


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> This was one of the most unsafe convictions in recent history, what a dangerous precedent it has set, now anybody who gets pissed and cant remeber what happened the next morning, can claim they were raped, when infact they may well have had fully consensual sex and simply cant remember. Its highly unlikely the vast majority of rape cases will ever need to address the issue of previous sexual history, unless similar fact evidence that is relevant is an issue, its not common place and so nothing about s41 EJCEA 1999 or the SAA 2003 have changed.



Quite apart from the fact that's not how precedent works, you're suggesting that a case in which the accused was acquitted and in which a woman didnt complain of rape is precedent for a woman being able to (presumably sucesfully) claim to have been raped.  Bonkers.

And what the fuck are the "EJCEA 1999" and the "SAA 2003"?


----------



## Pac man (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> Again, that's not "the facts", but one explanation for why he came forward.  Why do you take everything that supports Evans at face value?
> 
> And I wonder what qualifies him as an expert in what's strange behaviour for someone who has been raped.



The fact is a witness came forward and his explanation was his belief that her behaviour was out of character. This is not me supporting anything but its more plausable than some far fetched conspiracy to pervert the course of justice..FACT!!!


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> The fact is a witness came forward and his explanation was his belief that her behaviour was out of character. This is not me supporting anything but its more plausable than some far fetched conspiracy to pervert the course of justice..FACT!!!



Yes, that is his explanation of why he came forward.  Previously, you seemed to suggest it was "the facts" around him coming forward.  You do appreciate the difference between what someone claims and what is a fact, I presume?


----------



## Pac man (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> Quite apart from the fact that's not how precedent works, you're suggesting that a case in which the accused was acquitted and in which a woman didnt complain of rape is precedent for a woman being able to (presumably sucesfully) claim to have been raped.  Bonkers.
> 
> And what the fuck are the "YJCEA 1999" and the "SAA 2003"?



The only reason the case was retried was due to fresh evidence, without that fresh evidence "the similar fact evidence" the conviction would stand..and consequently anybody in the future claming they were drunk and couldnt remeber consenting to sex the night before can go to the police and claim they were raped. Thast is a dangerous precedent..A precedent is simply jude made law, where they fill in the blanks that the legaslature couldnt possibly forsee when they draft legistlation, precedents, common law as its otherwise known.

The YJCEA 1999 is the Yoith Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, part of wihch is s41, you know that what people have been been discussing for 130 pages. The SAA 2003 is The Sexual Amendment Act..that thing what explains what consent and reasonable belief in consent are, amongst other things.

EDA soory i have failing eye sight, no sight in one eye whatsoever anymore. I menat YJCEA not EJCEA.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> The only reason the case was retried was due to fresh evidence, without that fresh evidence "the similar fact evidence" the conviction would stand..*and consequently anybody in the future claming they were drunk and couldnt remeber consenting to sex the night before can go to the police and claim they were raped. Thast is a dangerous precedent*..A precedent is simply jude made law, where they fill in the blanks that the legaslature couldnt possibly forsee when they draft legistlation, precedents, common law as its otherwise known.
> 
> The EJCEA 1999 is the Yoith Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, part of wihch is s41, you know that what people have been been discussing for 130 pages. The SAA 2003 is The Sexual Amendment Act..that thing what explains what consent and reasonable belief in consent are, amongst other things.



Are you drunk or have you just got fat fingers?
What you're saying is important but the way you're saying it is shit.

If the conviction had stood, the precedent would perhaps be set that when a woman can't remember having sex with a man then she is by default probably a victim of serious crime.

Everyone will have their own opinion on that as a new way of carrying out justice. Some will think it a good idea, to protect vulnerable women from opportunist men.
Me personally I don't like it. But you are shooting yourself in the foot repeatedly by your choice of woman-blaming language.


----------



## Sue (Oct 18, 2016)

So, anyone else find it a bit strange that Pac man signs up as a new member and immediately dives straight into this thread?


----------



## Pac man (Oct 18, 2016)

bimble said:


> Thing is that she never claimed that she was raped.
> Your post is framed as if she did claim it, as if she was the actor in all of this. That is totally wrong and puts you in a very odd position.
> 
> I think I agree with you on the legal stuff and the seriously damaging implications of the precedent that was set by the original conviction.
> ...



You are right X never claimed she was raped, but neverthless it would be open to anybody to claim they were simply because they couldnt remember consenting the next morning due to alcholol intoxication. I dont nean to come across as thoughtless though, sorry if you think that, im really the opposite


----------



## Pac man (Oct 18, 2016)

bimble said:


> Are you drunk or have you just got fat fingers?
> What you're saying is important but the way you're saying it is shit.



Sorry as i just explained im partially sighted and struggle with the keyboard.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 18, 2016)

They are here to discuss the FACTS apparently. Not all of them though. Just the ones they insist are facts.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> The only reason the case was retried was due to fresh evidence, without that fresh evidence "the similar fact evidence" the conviction would stand..and consequently anybody in the future claming they were drunk and couldnt remeber consenting to sex the night before can go to the police and claim they were raped. Thast is a dangerous precedent..A precedent is simply jude made law, where they fill in the blanks that the legaslature couldnt possibly forsee when they draft legistlation, precedents, common law as its otherwise known.
> 
> The YJCEA 1999 is the Yoith Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, part of wihch is s41, you know that what people have been been discussing for 130 pages. The SAA 2003 is The Sexual Amendment Act..that thing what explains what consent and reasonable belief in consent are, amongst other things.
> 
> EDA soory i have failing eye sight, no sight in one eye whatsoever anymore. I menat YJCEA not EJCEA.



Anyone could go to the police before or after the first (and, indeed, second) trial, and claim to have been raped.  There was nothing in the original trial that amounted to precedent; it was an application of long established principles around the effect of voluntary intoxication on the capacity for consent.

Ok, lets put the EJCEA down to your eyesight. But the Sexual Amendment Act?  You really don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Pac man (Oct 18, 2016)

Sue said:


> So, anyone else find it a bit strange that Pac man signs up as a new member and immediately dives straight into this thread?



Why is it strange, didnt all new members join in a first thread..???


----------



## Sue (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Why is it strange, didnt all new members join in a first thread..???


Out of all of the threads on all of the bulletin boards, you end up on this one. Just wondering how you found your way here?


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Why is it strange, didnt all new members join in a first thread..???


Generally not the most controversial one on the forum, no.


----------



## Pac man (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> Anyone could go to the police before or after the first (and, indeed, second) trial, and claim to have been raped.  There was nothing in the original trial that amounted to precedent; it was an application of long established principles around the effect of voluntary intoxication on the capacity for consent.
> 
> Ok, lets put the EJCEA down to your eyesight. But the Sexual Amendment Act?  You really don't know what you're talking about.



The Sexual Ammendment Act 2003 section 1 defines consent and reasonable belief in consent and iirc. Its you who hasnt got a clue.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> The Sexual Ammendment Act 2003 section 1 defines consent and reasonable belief in consent and iirc. Its you who hasnt got a clue.



Do you mean the Sexual Offences Act 2003?


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Sorry as i just explained im partially sighted and struggle with the keyboard.


I'm sorry, maybe we're both a bit clumsy. Still, you worded yourself badly, as if this was about hoardes of future drunk women falsely claiming rape, which it really is not.


----------



## Pac man (Oct 18, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> Generally not the most controversial one on the forum, no.



I joined specifically after finding this discussion when looking for a forum to read about this case. I spent a few days reading then plucked up the courage to join. I dont quite understand what the issue is with me joining in with a discussion in a current affairs topic as a new member..I have no master plan other than to discuss a very important topic


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man do you mean the sexual offences act 2003?


----------



## Pac man (Oct 18, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> Pac man do you mean the sexual offences act 2003?



Soory again its me lol I always have reffered to it as the Sexual Amendment Act. it is indeed the Sexual Offences Act, it made changes hence why i have reffered to it before as the Sexual Amendments Act.


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> The fact is a witness came forward and his explanation was his belief that her behaviour was out of character. This is not me supporting anything but its more plausable than some far fetched conspiracy to pervert the course of justice..FACT!!!



did you know if you get overexcited on a boat once out of harbour or port... its legal to shot you in the face!!!

to ensure the safety of the crew

FACT!!!


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Oh, ok, the Sexual Offences Act 2003, is it?

Well, s.1 of that act doesn't define consent or reasonable belief, either.

So, your argument was based upon an act of which you knew neither the name nor the content.

Tell me again how I don't have a clue.  Clown.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac Man's posts about how a person who has been raped should act after the event are really bothering me.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> I joined specifically after finding this discussion when looking for a forum to read about this case. I spent a few days reading then plucked up the courage to join. I dont quite understand what the issue is with me joining in with a discussion in a current affairs topic as a new member..I have no master plan other than to discuss a very important topic


That's how I found this website too, in my case it was a very local issue I just googled the keywords. You've done nothing wrong in suddenly appearing Pac man , it's just a funny little place you've found yourself in, very territorial, there are border patrols in special uniforms and everything.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> ... it made changes hence why i have reffered to it before as the Sexual Amendments Act.



Unlike all those acts which made no changes?  Fool.


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 18, 2016)

this shit bothers me




> now anybody who gets pissed and cant remeber what happened the next morning, can claim they were raped, when infact they may well have had fully consensual sex and simply cant remember.




all the sneaky people who get raped


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> I joined specifically after finding this discussion when looking for a forum to read about this case. I spent a few days reading then plucked up the courage to join. I dont quite understand what the issue is with me joining in with a discussion in a current affairs topic as a new member..I have no master plan other than to discuss a very important topic


Did you read at least the last few pages prior to posting, or the frequently asked questions section?

You may not be intending to, but you're posting some things that can be offensive such as 'anybody could go to the police and claim they were raped, if they didn't remember consenting to sex the night before'. Also, if you claim something as a FACT make sure you back it up with a credible source or reference.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 18, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Soory again its me lol I always have reffered to it as the Sexual Amendment Act. it is indeed the Sexual Offences Act, it made changes hence why i have reffered to it before as the Sexual Amendments Act.


Um, what? All new pieces of legislation generally make changes, else there'd be no point to them.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 18, 2016)

Wilf said:


> This is idea that the victims evidence was moulded and shaped is pure speculation.



It _had to _be entirely shaped by them. She was a blank canvass remember? Other than to trigger events by lodging a report of lost or stolen bag on the night in question, that was the sum total of her contribution to their case up to that point. Nonetheless on the basis that she remembered nothing the footballers were arrested on suspicion of? Handbag theft? Nope. Rape. And so the the dye was cast. So it looks like the police have arrived at conclusions _ahead _of the investigation. So her choices at this stage were to a) walk away entirely or b) cooperate with what is now inevitably _their_ narrative. Much to her regret I'd imagine, she decided to go along with the police proposals.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> It _had to _be entirely shaped by them. She was a blank canvass remember? Other than to trigger events by lodging a report of lost or stolen bag on the night in question, that was the sum total of her contribution to their case up to that point. Nonetheless on the basis that she remembered nothing the footballers were arrested on suspicion of? Handbag theft? Nope. Rape. And so the the dye was cast. So it looks like the police have arrived at conclusions _ahead _of the investigation. So her choices at this stage were to a) walk away entirely or b) cooperate with what is now inevitably _their_ narrative. Much to her regret I'd imagine, she decided to go along with the police proposals.



Shaped from what to what?  Her account did not change from the intial one i.e. that she did not recall what had happened!


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

Where was the handbag?


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 18, 2016)

Thimble Queen said:


> Pac Man's posts about how a person who has been raped should act after the event are really bothering me.


I'm not surprised you're bothered, the post is full of regurgitated rape myth. It bothers me too.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 18, 2016)

bimble said:


> Where was the handbag?



Apparently she left it in or outside a kebab shop


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 18, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> It _had to _be entirely shaped by them. She was a blank canvass remember? Other than to trigger events by lodging a report of lost or stolen bag on the night in question, that was the sum total of her contribution to their case up to that point. Nonetheless on the basis that she remembered nothing the footballers were arrested on suspicion of? Handbag theft? Nope. Rape. And so the the dye was cast. So it looks like the police have arrived at conclusions _ahead _of the investigation. So her choices at this stage were to a) walk away entirely or b) cooperate with what is now inevitably _their_ narrative. Much to her regret I'd imagine, she decided to go along with the police proposals.


Oh for fuck's sake. Stop imagining and speculating and pushing your agenda and narrative onto this thread.

And if you're going to join in, start answering all the inconvenient questions put to you over the past few days.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 18, 2016)

Athos said:


> Shaped from what to what?  Her account did not change from the intial one i.e. that she did not recall what had happened!


Did she not give evidence at the trial?


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Did she not give evidence at the trial?



How was what she said at trial different from what she had said all along?  What was the effect of this 'shaping' in changing her account?

And, for a bonus point, whose accounts did indisputaby change over time, insofar as their later statements contained crucial information not in the earlier ones?


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 18, 2016)

Why does it even matter where her handbag was 5 years ago?


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Apparently she left it in or outside a kebab shop


That does seem kind of significant to the primary argument that she was not in a fit state to give meaningful consent then. Doesn't it.
Leaving all else aside (including how any of us feel about the law arbitrating who is and who isn't a competent adult able to consent or not) wandering off leaving your bag wallet phone etc means you're probably really not ok, in quite an obvious way?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 18, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> Oh for fuck's sake. Stop imagining and speculating and pushing your agenda and narrative onto this thread.
> 
> And if you're going to join in, start answering all the inconvenient questions put to you over the past few days.



None of them were inconvenient. Some were naive. And some were stupid. Most, if not all. were answered nonetheless.


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 19, 2016)

it's like a darkside yoda


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 19, 2016)

Athos said:


> How was what she said at trial different from what she had said all along?  What was the effect of this 'shaping' in changing her account?
> 
> And, for a bonus point, whose accounts did indisputaby change over time, insofar as their later statements contained crucial information not in the earlier ones?



It was about changing her account as such. It would have been about adding in: what happened prior to her not remembering.And all the rest of it, if the defence barrister was doing his job.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> It was about changing her account as such. It would have been about adding in: what happened prior to her not remembering.And all the rest of it, if the defence barrister was doing his job.



Oh, so not shaped as such.  But added to, eh?  So do you know what was added?  What did she say in court that hadn't been said to the police?

Or are you speculating again?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 19, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> It _had to _be entirely shaped by them. She was a blank canvass remember? Other than to trigger events by lodging a report of lost or stolen bag on the night in question, that was the sum total of her contribution to their case up to that point. Nonetheless on the basis that she remembered nothing the footballers were arrested on suspicion of? Handbag theft? Nope. Rape. And so the the dye was cast. So it looks like the police have arrived at conclusions _ahead _of the investigation. So her choices at this stage were to a) walk away entirely or b) cooperate with what is now inevitably _their_ narrative. Much to her regret I'd imagine, she decided to go along with the police proposals.


So, given that she said she couldn't remember events later in the evening, what was the shaping you are very keen to emphasise?  To be specific, what did she start out saying and what was this _shaped into_?  Oh, and where's your _evidence_ for this claim? You do have some evidence, don't you?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 19, 2016)

bimble said:


> That does seem kind of significant to the primary argument that she was not in a fit state to give meaningful consent then. Doesn't it.
> Leaving all else aside (including how any of us feel about the law arbitrating who is and who isn't a competent adult able to consent or not) wandering off leaving your bag wallet phone etc means you're probably really not ok, in quite an obvious way?



Yes, indeed it could. On the other hand she was aware she didn't have it. As she alerted the first footballer to the fact that her bag was missing when she met him.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 19, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> None of them were inconvenient. Some were naive. And some were stupid. Most, if not all. were answered nonetheless.


No they weren't,  you didn't answer any I put to you, nor many from others. 

Your attempts at superiority are making you look like a dick, quite frankly.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 19, 2016)

Athos said:


> Oh, so not shaped as such.  But added to, eh?  So do you know what was added?  What did she say in court that hadn't been said to the police?
> 
> Or are you speculating again?





equationgirl said:


> No they weren't,  you didn't answer any I put to you, nor many from others.
> 
> Your attempts at superiority are making you look like a dick, quite frankly.



Speculation.


----------



## bimble (Oct 19, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Yes, indeed it could. On the other hand she was aware she didn't have it. As she alerted the first footballer to the fact that her bag was missing when she met him.


Oh. And he replied no worries love never mind your bag I've got this hotel room booked?
her having lost her bag and telling him about it doesn't help M & then E's  case at all, does it.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Oct 19, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> I'm not surprised you're bothered, the post is full of regurgitated rape myth. It bothers me too.



I haven't posted a great deal on this thread bc it's painful. I think it's probably best for me to stop reading it, for now at least, as well.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 19, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Speculation.


That seems to be your stock answer for anything you don't like.

Your current dissection over the location of her handbag isn't doing you any favours - this woman is talking about moving to the other side of the world because of unwanted attention. Give it up.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Speculation.



Sorrry, I saw confused by you quoting my post and sometime else's. 

Are you saying that you were just speculating?  That what you had previously presented as fact was no such thing? 

Why would you do that? Why does your speculation always favour Evans?


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 19, 2016)

Thimble Queen said:


> I haven't posted a great deal on this thread bc it's painful. I think it's probably best for me to stop reading it, for now at least, as well.


I'm sorry to hear that, but I don't blame you for walking away. It's taken a deeply frustrating turn.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 19, 2016)

Athos said:


> Sorrry, I saw confused by you quoting my post and sometime else's.
> 
> Are you saying that you were just speculating?  That what you had previously presented as fact was no such thing?
> 
> Why would you do that? Why does your speculation always favour Evans?


His posting history indicates he's a big football fan - footballers couldn't possibly be sexual predators, now, could they?  but I'm speculating...


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 19, 2016)

Wilf said:


> So, given that she said she couldn't remember events later in the evening, what was the shaping you are very keen to emphasise?  To be specific, what did she start out saying and what was this _shaped into_?  Oh, and where's your _evidence_ for this claim? You do have some evidence, don't you?


Before you get too carried away, ask yourself this. Did she give evidence in court? If the answer is yes, then everything she said outside of 'I don't remember' would have been vetted and approved by the professionals, who had put their reputations on the line in rushing to judgement on the matter themselves. So if she went down in flames so did they. It's common practice. Barristers on both sides would go through the witness statements line by line. Inch by inch. Along with their clients. if something erroneous appears they will draw their clients attention to it, and in a lawyerly way of course - point to the possible pitfall. And help them step round it.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> His posting history indicates he's a big football fan - footballers couldn't possibly be sexual predators, now, could they?  but I'm speculating...


Yes, that's speculation. And a bit silly, not least off all because I'm a season ticket holder!


----------



## Pac man (Oct 19, 2016)

Athos said:


> Oh, ok, the Sexual Offences Act 2003, is it?
> 
> Well, s.1 of that act doesn't define consent or reasonable belief, either.
> 
> ...



No your right it defines rape and makes only a reference to consent and reasonable belief, as i said it was from memory long ago and my mind isnt what it was. So just to be clear i have failing eye sight and other medical conditions that affect not only memory but cognition at times too. Lets no beat about the bush, im not here to dick swing, i have a Law degree from 2001-2004, at a time when s41 was still relativley new, I only had sight in one eye back then too but managed a heavy uni workload and night voluntary work alongside caring for my elderly grandma with dementia, which was harder than my degree. But my health is now very poor but ill try and keep up, you may have to have a little patience though.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 19, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yes, that's speculation. And a bit silly, not least off all because I'm a session ticket holder!


No sillier than some of the posts


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 19, 2016)

bimble said:


> Oh. And he replied no worries love never mind your bag I've got this hotel room booked?
> her having lost her bag and telling him about it doesn't help M & then E's  case at all, does it.



Perhaps not, but hardly enough to warrnat a rape charge though.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Before you get too carried away, ask yourself this. Did she give evidence in court? If the answer is yes, then everything she said outside of 'I don't remember' would have been vetted and approved by the professionals, who had put their reputations on the line in rushing to judgement on the matter themselves. So if she went down in flames so did they. It's common practice. Barristers on both sides would go through the witness statements line by line. Inch by inch. Along with their clients. if something erroneous appears they will draw their clients attention to it, and in a lawyerly way of course - point to the possible pitfall. And help them step round it.



So, as well as making things up about the police's intentions, you're now accusing the prosecution lawyers of what would effectively amount to professional misconduct (all without any evidence)?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 19, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Before you get too carried away, ask yourself this. Did she give evidence in court? If the answer is yes, then everything she said outside of 'I don't remember' would have been vetted and approved by the professionals, who had put their reputations on the line in rushing to judgement on the matter themselves. So if she went down in flames so did they. It's common practice. Barristers on both sides would go through the witness statements line by line. Inch by inch. Along with their clients. if something erroneous appears they will draw their clients attention to it, and in a lawyerly way of course - point to the possible pitfall. And help them step round it.


Well, yeah, we know all that, but perhaps with slightly less scope for changing when she has consistently said she _doesn't remember_. So, essentially, no specific evidence at all that her evidence was in any way altered....

... but if you think that's the game, what about evidence that was changed, that was communicated via friends or family of the accused, where 50 grand was offered - what about that, how much shaping would you _speculate_ went on there?


----------



## bimble (Oct 19, 2016)

Pac man please try not to take it too personally when people attack you here, its hard but they don't know you they're just reacting to words on a screen .


----------



## Pac man (Oct 19, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> Did you read at least the last few pages prior to posting, or the frequently asked questions section?
> 
> You may not be intending to, but you're posting some things that can be offensive such as 'anybody could go to the police and claim they were raped, if they didn't remember consenting to sex the night before'. Also, if you claim something as a FACT make sure you back it up with a credible source or reference.



Im sorry if i come across as insensative, no i havent read the FAQ section. I did read quite a lot of this thread though.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2016)

Pac man said:


> No your right it defines rape and makes only a reference to consent and reasonable belief, as i said it was from memory long ago and my mind isnt what it was. So just to be clear i have failing eye sight and other medical conditions that affect not only memory but cognition at times too. Lets no beat about the bush, im not here to dick swing, i have a Law degree from 2001-2004, at a time when s41 was still relativley new, I only had sight in one eye back then too but managed a heavy uni workload and night voluntary work alongside caring for my elderly grandma with dementia, which was harder than my degree. But my health is now very poor but ill try and keep up, you may have to have a little patience though.


I'm sorry for your health problems.


----------



## bimble (Oct 19, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Perhaps not, but hardly enough to warrnat a rape charge though.


I agree with you, as I've admitted before. But the fact that she walked away from her handbag like that, and told M about having mislaid it  does seem like a piece of evidence quite significant to the case built that she was in no fit state to give meaningful consent in the eyes of the law / the jury etc.


----------



## Pac man (Oct 19, 2016)

bimble said:


> Pac man please try not to take it too personally when people attack you here, its hard but they don't know you they're just reacting to words on a screen .



Thanks i understand, I do have a difficult time not taking things personally, its part of a MH issue i have that id rather not go into detail about. Its one of the reasons i dont do forums or have facebook or twitter, so im not sure how im going to fit in tbh as it will probably be too stressful for me, we will see though.


----------



## Pac man (Oct 19, 2016)

Athos said:


> I'm sorry for your health problems.



Thankyou


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 19, 2016)

Athos said:


> Are you saying that you were just speculating?  That what you had previously presented as fact was no such thing?
> 
> Why would you do that? Why does your speculation always favour Evans?



No filling in the gaps like everyone else on here including you. If have no particular brief for him. I suspect the fact that he is probably a not too bright, entitled dick is half the reason the coppers went for him. Him being guilty as charged etc is a different matter.


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 19, 2016)

so just pissing in the wind playing devil's advocate for a entitled prick

or do you have another agenda


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 19, 2016)

Athos said:


> So, as well as making things up about the police's intentions, you're now accusing the prosecution lawyers of what would effectively amount to professional misconduct (all without any evidence)?



It's now clear to me you have no actual experience of how it all works at all do you? Earlier you sort of alluded to some professional expertise. But it was just eyewash wasn't it? 
The police made their intentions clear when they arrested them for rape - ahead of questioning them. Nothing to do with me.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 19, 2016)

bimble said:


> That does seem kind of significant to the primary argument that she was not in a fit state to give meaningful consent then. Doesn't it.
> Leaving all else aside (including how any of us feel about the law arbitrating who is and who isn't a competent adult able to consent or not) wandering off leaving your bag wallet phone etc means you're probably really not ok, in quite an obvious way?


If you're in the midst of an alcoholic blackout, that's exactly the kind of thing that happens. You lose shit, including important shit. You put something down then forget that you've put it down. You've lost, or had severely disrupted, the ability to lay down new memories.

I'm reluctant to post more on this thread, as I have no desire to talk directly about the woman involved or any of her actions. She has nothing whatever to answer for. But losing a bag in a period you don't remember because of alcohol, that's not unexpected.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 19, 2016)

Ax^ said:


> so just pissing in the wind playing devil's advocate for a entitled prick
> 
> or do you have another agenda



An innocent 'entitled prick' if you don't mind.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 19, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Well, yeah, we know all that, but perhaps with slightly less scope for changing when she has consistently said she _doesn't remember_. So, essentially, no specific evidence at all that her evidence was in any way altered....
> 
> ... but if you think that's the game, what about evidence that was changed, that was communicated via friends or family of the accused, where 50 grand was offered - what about that, how much shaping would you _speculate_ went on there?



That is all after the fact. There was no evidence it was changed: merely added to. Would you perjure yourself for £25,000?


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 19, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Thanks i understand, I do have a difficult time not taking things personally, its part of a MH issue i have that id rather not go into detail about. Its one of the reasons i dont do forums or have facebook or twitter, so im not sure how im going to fit in tbh as it will probably be too stressful for me, we will see though.


Well politics is probably the most aggressive of all the urban forums, so if you feel it's too much try general which is much lighter in tone.

I'm sorry for your health problems too.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 19, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> That is all after the fact. There was no evidence it was changed: merely added to. Would you perjure yourself for £25,000?


Again, not answering the questions put to you.  Oh, and you seem keen to dismiss the £50,000. If the victim had been offered that amount, say by a newspaper, before giving evidence I just have a feeling you wouldn't be dismissing it.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 19, 2016)

Wilf said:


> Again, not answering the questions put to you.  Oh, and you seem keen to dismiss the £50,000. If the victim had been offered that amount, say by a newspaper, before giving evidence I just have a feeling you wouldn't be dismissing it.



Answer the question I put to you.


----------



## bimble (Oct 19, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Answer the question I put to you.


Your question was would you lie under oath for £25,00o?
I think a lot of people would say yes to that , many wouldn't, no point trying to make it personal. It's more about who thinks that the most likely scenario, that two random men would do so.


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 19, 2016)

bimble said:


> Pac man please try not to take it too personally when people attack you here, its hard but they don't know you they're just reacting to words on a screen .


Who has attacked him? He is a new poster. People have gone really easy on him considering this is the politics forum.


Joe Reilly said:


> Answer the question I put to you.


Look, if you avoid answering questions you can't start trying to insist that others answer the ones you put to them. You've been on urban long enough to know that.


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 19, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> An innocent 'entitled prick' if you don't mind.



sure best British justice you can buy

I hear his rich soon to be  father in law who really wants to give his daughter that elusive pony is thinking of suing Gloria Hunniford


"look so he pre booked a hotel room to drag some intoxicated women back to for him and his mates whilst dating my daughter, but he is a good lad"


----------



## bimble (Oct 19, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> Who has attacked him? He is a new poster. People have gone really easy on him considering this is the politics forum.


Ok. Was just saying hello . If they're new they might not be fully informed about the fighting rules of the u75 politics forum which they've stumbled into,and the border guards .


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 19, 2016)

bimble said:


> Your question was would you lie under oath for £25,00o?
> I think a lot of people would say yes to that , many wouldn't, no point trying to make it personal. It's more about who thinks that the most likely scenario, that two random men would do so.



Anybody who would risk it, would also have to take into account the hefty prison sentence that would follow, if rumbled. Anyone that would still consider it worthwhile is already likely to have a considerable record of criminality to begin with. Which would disqualify them automatically as suitable candidates. Nothing personal in it. It's just some assume they are less honorable than themselves, as a result of the side they have lined up behind.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 19, 2016)

equationgirl said:


> Look, if you avoid answering questions you can't start trying to insist that others answer the ones you put to them. You've been on urban long enough to know that.



If you look,  I actually answered the question. Him or you not liking the reply is not the same thing.


----------



## bimble (Oct 19, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Anybody who would risk it, would also have to take into account the hefty prison sentence that would follow, if rumbled. Anyone that would still consider it worthwhile is already likely to have a considerable record of criminality to begin with. Which would disqualify them automatically as suitable candidates. Nothing personal in it. It's just some assume they are dishonorable as a result of the side they have lined up behind.


Yes. I prefer to explain by fuckup what others would attribute to malice but each to their own isn't it.


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 19, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> If you look,  I actually answered the question. Him or you not liking the reply is not the same thing.



and you talking ballcocks is another


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 19, 2016)

Ax^ said:


> "look so he pre booked a hotel room to drag some intoxicated women back to for him and his mates whilst dating my daughter, but he is a good lad"



I can see even by that brief comment you have done your research.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 19, 2016)

Ax^ said:


> and you talking ballcocks is another



A bit late in the day to be raising the intellectual tone of the debate don't you think?


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 19, 2016)

true whilst reflecting on your contribution to the thread its light pickings


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 19, 2016)

Ax^ said:


> true whilst reflecting on your contribution to the thread its light pickings


English is not your first language I take it?


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 19, 2016)

oh please you just spent a few hours defending a entitled prick

don't descend into remarks on grammar 


whats your angle in defending the accused

aside from repeating he is innocent


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> No filling in the gaps like everyone else on here including you. If have no particular brief for him. I suspect the fact that he is probably a not too bright, entitled dick is half the reason the coppers went for him. Him being guilty as charged etc is a different matter.



Filling in the gaps with things you've made up!


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> It's now clear to me you have no actual experience of how it all works at all do you? Earlier you sort of alluded to some professional expertise. But it was just eyewash wasn't it?
> The police made their intentions clear when they arrested them for rape - ahead of questioning them. Nothing to do with me.



I used to be a solicitor, so have a reasonable idea about the process of witnesses giving evidence; enough to know that you're just making things up.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> That is all after the fact. There was no evidence it was changed: merely added to. Would you perjure yourself for £25,000?



Yet you criticised the victim for having added to her account, even though you could give no examples or evidence of her having done so!


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 19, 2016)

Ax^ said:


> oh please you just spent a few hours defending a entitled prick


Nobody is defending Evans here, btw.

What's being defended is the principle that nobody should be found guilty of a crime without their guilt being substantially proven by evidence. In fact it's a fucking shame that this scumbag is the subject of the debate. If this weren't a rape case and the defendant was Ken Livingstone there'd be nowhere near this number of people crying foul, and U75 would be tripping over themselves declaring everything from police stitch-up to Tory conspiracy, over the first conviction.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 19, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Before you get too carried away, ask yourself this. Did she give evidence in court? If the answer is yes, then everything she said outside of 'I don't remember' would have been vetted and approved by the professionals, who had put their reputations on the line in rushing to judgement on the matter themselves. So if she went down in flames so did they. It's common practice. Barristers on both sides would go through the witness statements line by line. Inch by inch. Along with their clients. if something erroneous appears they will draw their clients attention to it, and in a lawyerly way of course - point to the possible pitfall. And help them step round it.


Nonsense, prosecution witness don't get any coaching at all.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 19, 2016)

Despite all the froth on here, one thing I haven't seen mentioned is that it was impossible to have an impartial jury in this case. Since the first trial it has been the Evans camp that has largely shaped the narrative. I'd be surprised if the majority of the jury didn't walk into the court room on the  first day with their mind already made up and never wavered. The new evidance presented under promise of a reward helped nundge those who were unsure. What was it, 2 hours to reach a verdict? So probably 1 (2 at the absolute most) starting off with guilty or unsure, and it took 2 hours for the rest to argue them round. That or they just had a natter and eat their lunch.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Despite all the froth on here, one thing I haven't seen mentioned is that it was impossible to have an impartial jury in this case. Since the first trial it has been the Evans camp that has largely shaped the narrative. I'd be surprised if the majority of the jury didn't walk into the court room on the  first day with their mind already made up and never wavered. The new evidance presented under promise of a reward helped nundge those who were unsure. What was it, 2 hours to reach a verdict? So probably 1 (2 at the absolute most) starting off with guilty or unsure, and it took 2 hours for the rest to argue them round. That or they just had a natter and eat their lunch.


I daresay many people paid little or no attention to the original trial, it's not like everyone is familiar with the case.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Nobody is defending Evans here, btw.
> 
> What's being defended is the principle that nobody should be found guilty of a crime without their guilt being substantially proven by evidence. In fact it's a fucking shame that this scumbag is the subject of the debate. If this weren't a rape case and the defendant was Ken Livingstone there'd be nowhere near this number of people crying foul, and U75 would be tripping over themselves declaring everything from police stitch-up to Tory conspiracy, over the first conviction.


I would wait to learn more of the allegation before crying foul pa. Or rather foul, pa.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 19, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> I daresay many people paid little or no attention to the original trial, it's not like everyone is familiar with the case.


Maybe, but I think k the football angle means a lot more people that normal will have a passing familiarity with it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 19, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> If this weren't a rape case and the defendant was Ken Livingstone there'd be nowhere near this number of people crying foul, and U75 would be tripping over themselves declaring everything from police stitch-up to Tory conspiracy, over the first conviction.



So if this wasn't about rape and it was about someone completely different, who would probably behave differently, people would react differently? WOW. Mind blown.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 19, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> So if this wasn't about rape and it was about someone completely different, who would probably behave differently, people would react differently? WOW. Mind blown.


No. If this regarded a non-rape case with a similar lack of evidence of guilt and the defendant wasn't a wealthy footballer ...

It's a highly emotive issue and that's affecting people's judgement to the extent that anyone with a different opinion "has an agenda", or is fiercely attacked.

There are people not posting on this thread for fear of being labelled rape apologists. There are only about half a dozen or so active participants now.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> So if this wasn't about rape and it was about someone completely different, who would probably behave differently, people would react differently? WOW. Mind blown.



Of course it would be different. This case is about balancing the rights of defendants with both the rights of rape complainants and the public interest in preventing victims of rape being deterred from coming forward.  If rape was taken out of the picture it'd be a completely different discussion!


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 19, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Despite all the froth on here, one thing I haven't seen mentioned is that it was impossible to have an impartial jury in this case. Since the first trial it has been the Evans camp that has largely shaped the narrative. I'd be surprised if the majority of the jury didn't walk into the court room on the  first day with their mind already made up and never wavered. The new evidance presented under promise of a reward helped nundge those who were unsure. What was it, 2 hours to reach a verdict? So probably 1 (2 at the absolute most) starting off with guilty or unsure, and it took 2 hours for the rest to argue them round. That or they just had a natter and eat their lunch.


So this kind of speculation goes unchallenged but when Joe Reilly does similar, he's jumped on?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 19, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> There are people not posting on this thread for fear of being labelled rape apologists. There are only about half a dozen or so active participants now.



Yup.  I got called a rape apologist for suggesting that the case should never have come to court in the first place.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 19, 2016)

Pac man said:


> I think too much weight is been given to what she said, it was more than that as the witness said she took the lead, was forceful at times intintiated oral sex and dictated the sexual posissons. He came forward and gave his account, it was more her behaviour than the words she used, and for that reason i think his testimon was overlooked due to perceptions of it being barred unders 41, so it wasnt "thoroughly explored", which is nothing new.


Hi Pac Man, just catching up on this. You started ok with your first post but then it all went crashing downhill. Add to that you've managed to find your way into the most contentious thread, on one of the least welcoming boards on the internet, with a contrary opinion! 

You're barking up the wrong tree here regarding s41.

There is a view here that the new evidence should never have been admitted IN LAW. The poster who is most vocal about that has hung his whole argument on it and conceded that the second trial jury's verdict was understandable given the admission of the new evidence, but the original guilty verdict would never have been quashed, thus no second trial, if the evidence weren't admitted. "No shit?" I hear you say.

So this argument is that the appellate judges got the law wrong.

They didn't.

The relevant bit of section 41 is section 3 (c) which allows the introduction of a complainants sexual behaviour if:



> c)it is an issue of consent and the sexual behaviour of the complainant to which the evidence or question relates is alleged to have been, in any respect, so similar—
> 
> (i)to any sexual behaviour of the complainant which (according to evidence adduced or to be adduced by or on behalf of the accused) took place as part of the event which is the subject matter of the charge against the accused, or
> 
> ...



So if it's _similar_ to that alleged by the defendant and took place at more or less the same time.

Kieron Vaughan (for Evans) argued that the the behaviour described by the witnesses was indeed similar. It referred to X taking control, adopting a specific position, and using specific words. People have argued that many people enjoy sex in certain positions, take control, and use certain words. That's true, and Ms Laws (for the prosecution) raised this, pointing out that such behaviour was not unusual. Trouble is, that's not the point. Section 41 does not require the behaviour to be UNUSUAL. It requires the behaviour to be SIMILAR. Vaughan argued that each of these behaviours _individually_ were SIMILAR to what Evans had described, _each alone_ satisfying the requirement, but taken _cumulatively_ they could also reasonably be considered to be beyond coincidence (see section 58 of the appeal transcript).

The judges agreed with Vaughan, in that respect the law was satisfied.

The judges also considered the spirit of the law. That is that sexual behaviour should be excluded if any part of its purpose is to traduce the character of the defendant, which would prevent other victims coming forward, and _"to counter the twin myths that unchaste women are more likely to consent to intercourse, and in any event are less worthy of belief"_.

That's not the case here. As the judges themselves noted very strongly, this has absolutely no bearing on the character of X because she hadn't made any accusations of rape or commented on consent_ herself. 
_
So the law was good.

Next you will have people taking issue with the potential for the money to have played a part but you dealt with that quite well yourself. The judges determined to allow the jury to decide on the evidence. The jury would have been aware of the reward offered but either decided it was not relevant or decided to acquit on an entirely different basis.

Someone might say to you: 





> Juries can't object to the admission of particular evidence. That you seem to think they can reveals a profound misunderstanding about the process, and the role of a jury.


 .... which of course is a deliberate misrepresentation of the position. The fact is that juries are duty bound to decide on the veracity of evidence admitted, and in this case they either did, and believed it, or they didn't believe it relevant.

I'm sure that's what you were thinking!


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 19, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Yup.  I got called a rape apologist for suggesting that the case should never have come to court in the first place.


Everyone has been. No exceptions.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 19, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> So this kind of speculation goes unchallenged but when Joe Reilly does similar, he's jumped on?



Some of us actually have to go to work! Urban conversations aren't all we have going on ffs


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 19, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Some of us actually have to go to work! Urban conversations aren't all we have going on ffs


I'm at work!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 19, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I'm at work!


Not doing much, obviously.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 19, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Not doing much, obviously.


It's certainly stacking up. 

See you later.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Everyone has been. No exceptions.


i suppose it sort of loses its sting when it applies to everyone


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> So this kind of speculation goes unchallenged but when Joe Reilly does similar, he's jumped on?


all speculation is equal: but some speculation is more equal than other bits, as eric blair wrote.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Maybe, but I think k the football angle means a lot more people that normal will have a passing familiarity with it.


what number of people is normal?


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Hi Pac Man, just catching up on this. You started well with your first post and then it all went downhill. Add to that you've managed to find your way into the most contentious thread, on one of the least welcoming boards on the internet, with a contrary opinion!
> 
> You're barking up the wrong tree here regarding s41.
> 
> ...



I thought that, out of respect for the wishes of survivors of sexual violence who have posted on this thread asking us to stop, we had reached an understanding that we would neither reply nor refer to each other?  

At the very least, I would ask that you do not try to paraphrase what my position is, since you have repeatedly misrepresented it (whether deliberately, or because you've not grasped what I've said).


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 19, 2016)

Athos said:


> I thought that, out of respect for the wishes of survivors of sexual violence who have posted on this thread asking us to stop, we had reached an understanding that we would neither reply nor refer to each other?



I thought we did too, but you broke the agreement by sneakily, indirectly commenting on one of my posts by quoting Rutita at #4119.

I did the same.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I thought we did too, but you broke the agreement by sneakily, indirectly commenting on one of my posts by quoting Rutita at #4119.
> 
> I did the same.



Seriously? I was talking to a general point; you quoted my words (albeit removing my name), and were clearly referring to me. Please stop.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 19, 2016)

Athos said:


> Seriously? I was talking to a general point; you quoted my words (albeit removing my name), and were clearly talking about me.


No difference. It was a point I made.

You do that again, I'll do the same.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 19, 2016)




----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2016)

As far as I'm aware, nobody on this thread is seriously proposing a change to the standard of proof required for conviction in rape cases. It's accepted that, to convict, a jury must find guilt beyond reasonable doubt, on the evidence they have heard.

The reference to "the evidence they have heard" is crucial. Both as a matter of principle, and in reality in this case; had the Court of Appeal not concluded that a jury should hear the new evidence, the original verdict would not have been quashed.

As such, a really significant question in this case is whether or not the Court of Appeal should have decided that the new evidence was admissible.

There are some good (and unanswered) arguments that it is wrong in law, and, obviously, some good counter arguments, given that's what the court decided.

But, also, there's a debate about whether, even if a decision to admit the evidence was within a proper margin of discretion, it was just to do so.

On the latter point, most of us appreciate that the rules of evidence are there to ensure a balance between the rights of the accused to defend themselves and some wider interests e.g. the rights of complainants not to be traumatised by the court process (for instance by details of their sex life being introduced by the back door), and the public interest in not deterring reports of rape.

In this case, some of us (myself included) believe that that balance could have been struck without the new evidence being ruled admissible, such that X's sexual history was allowed to be picked over. On the facts of this case, that's primarily because of the limited probative value of the new evidence, rather than the questions around the circumstances in which it was generated.

Some others* believe that that balance could only be acheived by interpreting the relevant provision (s.41) in a way that is more favourable to the interests of a man accused of rape.

Of course, those respective positions will be informed by the protagonists respective agendas/outlook/mindset/priorities/understanding  (call it what you will).

* For the record, I'm happy to specifically exclude Spymaster from this group, so that there can be no suggestion that I'm talking to or about him, such that he has no reason to reply in breach of our agreement to respect the wishes of other posters.


----------



## tim (Oct 19, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Despite all the froth on here, one thing I haven't seen mentioned is that it was impossible to have an impartial jury in this case. Since the first trial it has been the Evans camp that has largely shaped the narrative. I'd be surprised if the majority of the jury didn't walk into the court room on the  first day with their mind already made up and never wavered. The new evidance presented under promise of a reward helped nundge those who were unsure. What was it, 2 hours to reach a verdict? So probably 1 (2 at the absolute most) starting off with guilty or unsure, and it took 2 hours for the rest to argue them round. That or they just had a natter and eat their lunch.



You don't have much respect for ordinary people, do you? Whatever the faults of the English legal system it does allow the decision of innocent or guilt to be made by randomly selected fellow citizens, not by a legal elite and it insists that the level of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. Would you prefer judgment to be left in the hands of the professionals? 

This patroning post says more about you and your snobbish prejudices than it does about the character of your fellow citizens.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 19, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Nonsense, prosecution witness don't get any coaching at all.



Aren't you the guy who thinks police still beat confessions out of people as a matter of routine?


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 19, 2016)

Athos said:


> I used to be a solicitor, so have a reasonable idea about the process of witnesses giving evidence; enough to know that you're just making things up.



I'll take your word for it. But one things for sure, it wasn't in criminal law.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 19, 2016)

As far as I'm aware nobody on this thread believes that someone should be convicted of something he may not have done.

If the decision to admit new evidence was correct in law (absolutely nothing to the contrary has been posted, and plenty to support that it was, has) and leads to the overturning of an unsafe conviction, how can it not be just?

Obviously the rules of evidence should protect women who complain of rape from having their sexual history being picked over in court_ *but not to the extent that a possibly innocent man is imprisoned and falsely branded a rapist*.
_
Some of us (myself included) believe that it would have been absolutely impossible for this balance to have been struck without the admission of the new evidence.

Some others* believe that balance is maintained interpreting section 41 against its spirit, in a way that denies a possibly innocent man a potential defence FOR A JURY TO DECIDE ON. Remember, this evidence did not automatically acquit him. It still had to be considered by a jury.

The only agenda in operation here is the one that suggests defendants accused of rape should be treated differently in law to anyone else. 

(* I'm happy to exclude Athos from this group, so that ... etc etc)


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 19, 2016)

Ax^ said:


> oh please you just spent a few hours defending a entitled prick
> 
> don't descend into remarks on grammar/QUOTE]



It wasn't the grammar. It was the "whilst" amidst the semi-literate gibbering that caught my eye.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2016)

Pac man said:


> This was one of the most unsafe convictions in recent history, what a dangerous precedent it has set, now anybody who gets pissed and cant remeber what happened the next morning, can claim they were raped, when infact they may well have had fully consensual sex and simply cant remember. Its highly unlikely the vast majority of rape cases will ever need to address the issue of previous sexual history, unless similar fact evidence that is relevant is an issue, its not common place and so nothing about s41 EJCEA 1999 or the SAA 2003 have changed.



You stink of MRA self-righteousness, new fish.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2016)

bimble said:


> Pac man please try not to take it too personally when people attack you here, its hard but they don't know you they're just reacting to words on a screen .


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2016)

bimble said:


> Pac man please try not to take it too personally when people attack you here, its hard but they don't know you they're just reacting to words on a screen .




why not take personal attacks personally?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 19, 2016)

If I personally attack someone _I insist_ they take it personally!


----------



## bimble (Oct 19, 2016)

Yep sorry everyone, don't know what came over me, I felt a bit sorry for the brand new poster who'd picked this of all threads as a way in to the welcoming supportive community that is U75.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2016)

bimble said:


> Yep sorry everyone, don't know what came over me, I felt a bit sorry for the brand new poster who'd picked this of all threads as a way in to the welcoming supportive community that is U75.


you won't make that mistake again


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 19, 2016)

.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Oct 19, 2016)

Athos said:


> Yet you criticised the victim for having added to her account, even though you could give no examples or evidence of her having done so!



Unless she went into the witness box and I said 'I don't remember'  to every question under cross examination it is inevitable (if the defense barrister is a sharp cookie, and I'm sure he was) she would have simply had to 'add' to her initial statement. And no matter how strong the case looks on paper, if it is to come unglued, it will almost always begin in the witness box.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 19, 2016)

Who was personally attacking Pacman?  Can these personal attacks be quoted please? I see what they posted being challenged and then someone saying that they shouldn't feel personally attacked.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 19, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Unless she went into the witness box and I said 'I don't remember'  to every question under cross examination it is inevitable (if the defense barrister is a sharp cookie, and I'm sure he was) she would have simply had to 'add' to her initial statement. And no matter how strong the case looks on paper, if it is to come unglued, it will almost always begin in the witness box.



Ah so you yourself don't know what she did or didn't say but for some reason you presume your imagination is correct.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 19, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> If the decision to admit new evidence was correct in law (_absolutely nothing_ to the contrary has been posted, and plenty to support that it was, has) and leads to the overturning of an unsafe conviction, how can it not be just?


I'm not sure about that. This piece by Vera Baird has been linked to. Whilst she doesn't directly question the judge or court of appeal, she clearly thinks the admission of the sexual history went against the intentions of the legislation she was involved with.
We cannot allow the courts to judge rape by sexual history | Vera Baird


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Unless she went into the witness box and I said 'I don't remember'  to every question under cross examination it is inevitable (if the defense barrister is a sharp cookie, and I'm sure he was) she would have simply had to 'add' to her initial statement. And no matter how strong the case looks on paper, if it is to come unglued, it will almost always begin in the witness box.



Pure speculation.


----------



## Pac man (Oct 19, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> You stink of MRA self-righteousness, new fish.



What does MRA mean pls?


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 19, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Unless she went into the witness box and I said 'I don't remember'  to every question under cross examination it is inevitable (if the defense barrister is a sharp cookie, and I'm sure he was) she would have simply had to 'add' to her initial statement. And no matter how strong the case looks on paper, if it is to come unglued, it will almost always begin in the witness box.



Where was her handbag during this


----------



## bimble (Oct 19, 2016)

Pac man said:


> What does MRA mean pls?


Men's Rights Activist. Have a google. You're being accused of it because your posts show you to be very worried that women will maliciously make false accusations against innocent men.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 19, 2016)

Wilf said:


> I'm not sure about that. This piece by Vera Baird has been linked to. Whilst she doesn't directly question the judge or court of appeal, she clearly thinks the admission of the sexual history went against the intentions of the legislation she was involved with.
> We cannot allow the courts to judge rape by sexual history | Vera Baird


Sure, but plenty of other law professionals disagree with Vera Baird (who is also a women's rights activist) and as you say she stops well short of saying the decision was wrong.


----------



## Pac man (Oct 19, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Who was personally attacking Pacman?  Can these personal attacks be quoted please? I see what they posted being challenged and then someone saying that they shouldn't feel personally attacked.



Maybe Bimble is psychic?  I find it very difficult writing as Im partially sighted, perspective is often skewed, my MH has deteriorated.  I have a paranoid petsonality disorder, so i was actually grateful that bimble wrote what she did even though nobody really attacked me, It reminded me not to take things to heart and be overly sensative.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 19, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Im partially sighted, perspective is often skewed, my MH has deteriorated.  I have a paranoid petsonality disorder ...


... otherwise you're fine, eh?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 19, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Maybe Bimble is psychic?  I find it very difficult writing as Im partially sighted, perspective is often skewed, my MH has deteriorated.  I have a paranoid petsonality disorder, so i was actually grateful that bimble wrote what she did even though nobody really attacked me, It reminded me not to take things to heart and be overly sensative.



I'm glad it helped you feel better. However, you were not being personally attacked so creating the situation in which there is a belief that you were is really manipulative and dishonest.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 19, 2016)

Oh no, not again!


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2016)

Those two are worse than you and me. Least we've confined the beef to one thread.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2016)

bimble said:


> Men's Rights Activist. Have a google. You're being accused of it because your posts show you to be very worried that women will maliciously make false accusations against innocent men.



A worry that hasn't yet been borne out in 40+ years of research. The rate of false accusation doesn't appear to have changed with regard to any piece of legislation applied.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2016)

Pac man said:


> ... Im partially sighted, perspective is often skewed, my MH has deteriorated.  I have a paranoid petsonality disorder...



And you still did a better job of cobbling together a semi-coherent position than some of the contributors to this thread.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 19, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Oh no, not again!



Any more of your ridiculous open letter posts protesting her innocence when anyone calls her on anything and I have promised to be just as ridiculous and threaten to duff you up.


----------



## bimble (Oct 19, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I'm glad it helped you feel better. However, you were not being personally attacked so creating the situation in which there is a belief that you were is really manipulative and dishonest.


If I said 'good afternoon' you'd suspect me of evil hidden intent because there's nothing particularly good about the afternoon is there look at it it's crap so what am I up to.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 19, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> Any more of your ridiculous open letter posts protesting her innocence when anyone calls her on anything and I have promised to be just as ridiculous and threaten to duff you up.


Fuck that. I'm staying out of it between you two. 

Although she did buy me a few beers last week .....


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 19, 2016)

bimble said:


> If I said 'good afternoon' you'd suspect me of evil hidden intent because there's nothing particularly good about the afternoon is there look at it it's crap so what am I up to.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2016)

bimble said:


> If I said 'good afternoon' you'd suspect me of evil hidden intent because there's nothing particularly good about the afternoon is there look at it it's crap so what am I up to.


yeh. but by contrast if i said good afternoon, you'd know i meant 'it is a good afternoon'. because it is.


----------



## Pac man (Oct 19, 2016)

bimble said:


> Men's Rights Activist. Have a google. You're being accused of it because your posts show you to be very worried that women will maliciously make false accusations against innocent men.



Sorry i came across that way, I dont expect there to be hoards of women making false rape accusations. I just find the decison to charge him in the first place frightening for many other sexual active teenagers out getting pissed at the weekend and engaging in sex but too drunk to give consent, how the hell are youngsters to know what too drunk to consent is?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Sorry i came across that way, I dont expect there to be hoards of women making false rape accusations. I just find the decison to charge him in the first place frightening for many other sexual active teenagers out getting pissed at the weekend and engaging in sex but too drunk to give consent, how the hell are youngsters to know what too drunk to consent is?


hordes of women. hoards are different.


----------



## Pac man (Oct 19, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> I'm glad it helped you feel better. However, you were not being personally attacked so creating the situation in which there is a belief that you were is really manipulative and dishonest.



It wasnt me who complained of being attacked, it was bimble who suggested others went easy on me..not me..so pls kindly fuck off calling me manipulative and dishinest two things I am not.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 19, 2016)

Pac man said:


> It wasnt me who complained of being attacked, it was bimble who suggested others went easy on me..not me..so pls kindly fuck off calling me manipulative and dishinest two things I am not.


no, no, no, no, no ....


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> no, no, no, no, no ....


you don't love me and i know now


----------



## bimble (Oct 19, 2016)

Pac man said:


> It wasnt me who complained of being attacked, it was bimble who suggested others went easy on me..not me..so pls kindly fuck off calling me manipulative and dishinest two things I am not.


No it's me she's accusing of those things not you.
Rutita1 it's good to know you're always up for a reminding me what a horrible person I am but I'm not up for a fight today, sorry.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 19, 2016)

Pac man said:


> It wasnt me who complained of being attacked, it was bimble who suggested others went easy on me..not me..so pls kindly fuck off calling me manipulative and dishinest two things I am not.



 I wasn't referring to you, twit.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 19, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> you don't love me and i know now


Too many no's


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Too many no's


yeh. but pa i know how you fuck about with lyricks when you do the karaoke


----------



## Pac man (Oct 19, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> no, no, no, no, no ....



WTF I have just been accused iof creating a situation that i didnt create, being manipulative and dishonest..what is the no no no for, i cant tell somebody to fuck off who calles me manipulative and dishonest?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 19, 2016)

bimble said:


> No it's me she's accusing of those things not you.
> Rutita1 it's good to know you're always up for a reminding me what a horrible person I am but I'm not up for a fight today, sorry.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2016)

Pac man said:


> WTF I have just been accused iof creating a situation that i didnt create, being manipulative and dishonest..what is the no no no for, i cant tell somebody to fuck off who calles me manipulative and dishonest?


not judging by your recent behaviour you can't, not when you tell someone to fuck off who hasn't called you manipulative and dishonest.


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Sorry i came across that way, I dont expect there to be hoards of women making false rape accusations. I just find the decison to charge him in the first place frightening for many other sexual active teenagers out getting pissed at the weekend and engaging in sex but too drunk to give consent, how the hell are youngsters to know what too drunk to consent is?


Maybe they should err on the side of caution?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2016)

bimble said:


> No it's me she's accusing of those things not you.
> Rutita1 it's good to know you're always up for a reminding me what a horrible person I am but I'm not up for a fight today, sorry.


i don't think you have any say in the matter whether there's a fight or not. will you defend yourself?


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Too many no's



Even Evans would stop.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 19, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't think you have any say in the matter whether there's a fight or not. will you defend yourself?



You can fuck off as well with this shit stirring rubbish. Seriously.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 19, 2016)

Pac man said:


> WTF I have just been accused iof creating a situation that i didnt create, being manipulative and dishonest..what is the no no no for, i cant tell somebody to fuck off who calles me manipulative and dishonest?


No. You haven't.

Rutita was posting that to Bimble. 

They have a strange relationship on here.


----------



## Pac man (Oct 19, 2016)

Disengenious cunts and abusive horrible bastartds that go out of their way to deliberataly upset others with serious health problems that are just as bad as the conduct of Evans and his snide behaviour on the, calulating cold and without feelings. So whoever it was who accused me of being manipulative and dishonest you fall into that category.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> You can fuck off as well with this shit stirring rubbish. Seriously.


yeh, well granted it is rubbish compared with your ongoing vendetta against bimble. proper professional shitstirring, _that_ is.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 19, 2016)

Pac man said:


> how the hell are youngsters to know what too drunk to consent is?




It's hard for them isn't it. Bit like all those under 16 minxes claiming to be 18 or older. Like, just how the fuck can you know?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 19, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Disengenious cunts and abusive horrible bastartds that go out of their way to deliberataly upset others with serious health problems that are just as bad as the conduct of Evans and his snide behaviour on the, calulating cold and without feelings. So whoever it was who accused me of being manipulative and dishonest you fall into that category.


Whoa!

Are you reading what's being posted?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Disengenious cunts and abusive horrible bastartds that go out of their way to deliberataly upset others with serious health problems that are just as bad as the conduct of Evans and his snide behaviour on the, calulating cold and without feelings. So whoever it was who accused me of being manipulative and dishonest you fall into that category.


have you been on the booze? no one's called you manipulative or dishonest. but i'll be your huckleberry.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 19, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh, well granted it is rubbish compared with your ongoing vendetta against bimble. proper professional shitstirring, _that_ is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


>


you do let yourself down by mining one cartoon for the lols. what was initially amusing risks becoming trite and cliched.


----------



## Pac man (Oct 19, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Whoa!
> 
> Are you reading what's being posted?



Sorry i read that persons post completley wrong, i see what i did.. like i said i have a paranoid personality disorder, (welcome to my world) im sorry for my above rant pls accept my appologies for calling that Ruitita 1 behavious similar to that of Evans..


----------



## Pac man (Oct 19, 2016)

Probably not wise idea me joining..ill just slip out via the back door


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Probably not wise idea me joining..ill just slip out via the back door


just lurk for a bit, everyone else does


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 19, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Sorry i read that persons post completley wrong, i see what i did.. like i said i have a paranoid personality disorder, (welcome to my world) im sorry for my above rant pls accept my appologies for calling that Ruitita 1 behavious similar to that of Evans..



No biggie. 

You were not being personally attacked yesterday, nor have I attacked you today.  Glad we are now clear.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 19, 2016)

Pac man said:


> my appologies for calling that Ruitita 1 behavious similar to that of Evans..


Yeah, I reckon some people would probably consider that a trifle unfair.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 19, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Probably not wise idea me joining..ill just slip out via the back door



Sneak off down the fire escape.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Sneak off down the fire escape.


for a crafty fag


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Probably not wise idea me joining..ill just slip out via the back door



Fire escape.

Eta: bollocks, beaten to it!


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 19, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Probably not wise idea me joining..ill just slip out via the back door


At least stick around until someone really calls you a cunt.

It's never long on here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> At least stick around until someone _really_ calls you a cunt.
> 
> It's never long on here.


you cunt, pa


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 19, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> you do let yourself down by mining one cartoon for the lols. what was initially amusing risks becoming trite and cliched.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2016)

Rutita1 said:


> View attachment 94121


no need to reheat a meme which jumped the shark years back. where is the originality which - usually - makes you such a sparkling poster?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 19, 2016)

is this really the thread for gifs and lulz?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> is this really the thread for gifs and lulz?


if you apply to editor to become a mod i am sure he will give the matter due consideration.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 19, 2016)

Pac man said:


> Sorry i came across that way, I dont expect there to be hoards of women making false rape accusations. I just find the decison to charge him in the first place frightening for many other sexual active teenagers out getting pissed at the weekend and engaging in sex but too drunk to give consent, how the hell are youngsters to know what too drunk to consent is?



By following rules of thumb. I certainly knew aged 17-19 when someone was totally fucked. I was taught by my friends/peers to watch out for friends (and strangers) who were too fucked and to look after them. I suppose some of that comes from the Peace, Love, Unity, Respect vibe of raving but even at raves/nightclubs you can see sexual predators looking for women who are falling over but still able to talk/dance (in a manner of speaking anyway).

Ask yourself, if that was my friend/sister, would I feel happy leaving them to their own devices or would I think they need someone to keep an eye on them, make sure they get home safely? If the latter then they are too wasted to consent. If you're not sure, don't. The line may be blurry but it's not that difficult and it's easy to be cautious.
If someone is also wasted then they have a reasonable excuse to not be able to recognise the signs. Otherwise no excuse, only if the person happens to be able to hold things together outwardly well enough and aren't showing any of the signs we all know such as:

semi conscious / unconscious
unable to talk coherently
unable to walk (without support)
eyes pointing in different directions
walks straight off pavement into road as unable to distinguish between the two

definite no-no

then the edges of it

slurred speech
repeating conversations just had
unable to walk in a straight line
difficulty walking at all
glazed/blurry eyes
unable to maintain eye contact

then all the personal stuff that you only know when you know the person such as them getting louder/quieter or things like that.

Really it's not hard. It needs to be taught to teenagers in schools, but consent / sex education is generally pretty shit so not much hope there. Otherwise it needs to be taught by peers when teenagers start going out and via media/social media. The signs that someone is beyond being able to consent are the same as the signs someone needs to be looked after to make sure they get home safely.


----------



## bimble (Oct 19, 2016)

Maybe this country has a particularly bad risk / problem because drinking to the point of serious drunkenness is kind of 'normal' here, more normal than most places anyway - a good night out and getting totally wasted often confused as the same thing. I wouldn't want to hazard a guess at what % of young people who have sex having met that night are either one of them sober. 


BigTom said:


> The signs that someone is beyond being able to consent are the same as the signs someone needs to be looked after to make sure they get home safely.


 Totally sound that as the basic rule. Depends on being able to look at women as actual people that you care about not conquests , but that's a whole other challenge.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2016)

bimble said:


> Maybe this country has a particularly bad risk / problem because drinking to the point of serious drunkenness is kind of 'normal' here, more normal than most places anyway -


not so sure about that...
List of countries by alcohol consumption per capita - Wikipedia


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 19, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 94127
> View attachment 94128




We were 8th until you quit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 19, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> We were 8th until you quit.


2nd


----------



## emanymton (Oct 19, 2016)

No. If you think otherwise please provide a link to me saying so.


----------



## emanymton (Oct 19, 2016)

tim said:


> You don't have much respect for ordinary people, do you? Whatever the faults of the English legal system it does allow the decision of innocent or guilt to be made by randomly selected fellow citizens, not by a legal elite and it insists that the level of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. Would you prefer judgment to be left in the hands of the professionals?
> 
> This patroning post says more about you and your snobbish prejudices than it does about the character of your fellow citizens.


If I'd been part of the jury, I'd have started off thinking he was guilty. I'm 90% sure I'd have still thought guilty by the end of it. So that's about as much respect as I have for myself.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 19, 2016)

emanymton said:


> If I'd been part of the jury, I'd have started off thinking he was guilty.


Before or after you'd heard the evidence?


----------



## emanymton (Oct 19, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Before or after you'd heard the evidence?


Oh before. And probably after.


----------



## bimble (Oct 19, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> not so sure about that...
> List of countries by alcohol consumption per capita - Wikipedia


Those Andorrans  up there with world's drinking heavyweights and then "In 2013, the people of Andorra had the highest life expectancy in the world at 81 years, according to _The Lancet. _


----------



## emanymton (Oct 19, 2016)

Joe Reilly said:


> Aren't you the guy who thinks police still beat confessions out of people as a matter of routine?





emanymton said:


> No. If you think otherwise please provide a link to me saying so.


Don't know what happened to the quote.


----------



## bemused (Oct 19, 2016)

bimble said:


> Those Andorrans  up there with world's drinking heavyweights and then "In 2013, the people of Andorra had the highest life expectancy in the world at 81 years, according to _The Lancet. _



The guys who collected the stats were probably pissed.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 19, 2016)

bimble said:


> Those Andorrans  up there with world's drinking heavyweights and then "In 2013, the people of Andorra had the highest life expectancy in the world at 81 years, according to _The Lancet. _



Andorra is a duty-free destination for France and Spain, so probably a lot of the alcohol it "consumes" for the purposes of the stats its not consumed on the premises.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 19, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Andorra is a duty-free destination for France and Spain, so probably a lot of the alcohol it "consumes" for the purposes of the stats its not consumed on the premises.


"They come over 'ere, distorting our alcohol consumption stats"


----------



## tim (Oct 19, 2016)

Raheem said:


> Andorra is a duty-free destination for France and Spain, so probably a lot of the alcohol it "consumes" for the purposes of the stats its not consumed on the premises.



I went there in the 80's and remember seeing a lot of duty-free cheese shops, so it would be interesting to see the figures for saturated fat consumption.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 20, 2016)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Fucking stupid and offensive thing to say.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 20, 2016)

Why are you posting that?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 20, 2016)

tim said:


> I went there in the 80's and remember seeing a lot of duty-free cheese shops, so it would be interesting to see the figures for saturated fat consumption.


ChrisFilter's the man for cheese, not a thing to be found out about cheese he doesn't know.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 20, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Why are you posting that?



Double standards and all. EoY knows the score. Don't worry yourself about it.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 20, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Double standards and all. EoY knows the score. Don't worry yourself about it.


Is this you claiming that she's posting on a different site under another name again?


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 20, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Is this you claiming that she's posting on a different site under another name again?



Don't worry about it, pa


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 20, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Don't worry about it, pa


No, seriously, if that's what you're doing it's bang out of order.

Not only has she denied that it's her, you've got no proof; and even it were, you are bringing a supremely weird beef across completely different websites.

That's more than creepy. It's properly disturbed.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 20, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No, seriously, if that's what you're doing it's bang out of order.
> 
> Not only has she denied that it's her, you've got no proof; and even it were, you are bringing a supremely weird beef across completely different websites.
> 
> That's more than creepy. It's properly disturbed.



Says the chap who makes jokes about sexual abuse. Don't go there, pa.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 20, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Says the chap who makes jokes about sexual abuse. Don't go there, pa.


You've gone fucking mad. Seriously. Have a serious fucking word with yourself.

Posts reported.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 20, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You've gone fucking mad. Seriously. Have a serious fucking word with yourself.



Now, now, pa. Let's not make it all about me. Your undying support for EoY is admirable but don't let it cloud your vision. 

Now go and make a joke about how my sister was sexually abused, again, just to show what a level headed amicable bloke you are.


----------



## bimble (Oct 20, 2016)

Krtek why not get off the computer for a bit, go for a walk or something.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 20, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Now, now, pa. Let's not make it all about me. Your undying support for EoY is admirable but don't let it cloud your vision.
> 
> Now go and make a joke about how my sister was sexually abused, again, just to show what a level headed amicable bloke you are.


Wow. Just wow. Maybe you need to take another break from here, fella.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 20, 2016)

ffs. this is not the thread for beef and point scoring. How many times do rape survivors have to speak up to ask you to stop this fucking shit and have a proper conversation around rape/consent/intoxication issues. please fuck the fuck off this thread. I'm not a survivor and it's getting to me, I hate to think what it's doing to people who have a direct emotional connection with this stuff.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 20, 2016)

BigTom said:


> ffs. this is not the thread for beef and point scoring. How many times do rape survivors have to speak up to ask you to stop this fucking shit and have a proper conversation around rape/consent/intoxication issues. please fuck the fuck off this thread. I'm not a survivor and it's getting to me, I hate to think what it's doing to people who have a direct emotional connection with this stuff.



With respect, BT, it's _precisely_ the hipocrisy on display from certain posters that prompted my "input" this morning. And I wouldn't dare belittle rape survivors - being one myself.

But yes, you're correct - this is not about point scoring. So, I'll opt out of the thread.


----------



## hash tag (Oct 26, 2016)

Bet Evans doesnt make a contribution or offer some of that "reward" money Ched Evans accuser shown 'love and support' by fundraising campaign - BBC News


----------



## RubyBlue (Oct 27, 2016)

Why would he?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 27, 2016)

hash tag said:


> Bet Evans doesnt make a contribution or offer some of that "reward" money Ched Evans accuser shown 'love and support' by fundraising campaign - BBC News


Don't suppose it would be accepted


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 28, 2016)

Ched Evans trial: Government considers rape law change - BBC News



> A potential change in the law relating to rape cases will be considered in the wake of the Ched Evans case, the government has said.



Perhaps just training judges that doggie style sex and saying, fuck me harder, is not unusual or rare.

Really not seeing how Evans can go back to football, he's a rapist who's got away with it due to his cash and the government and judiciary are looking to close the loopholes he used to get away with it.

And there won't be compo for him either.

Scum.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Ched Evans trial: Government considers rape law change - BBC News
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ched's law


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 5, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Perhaps just training judges that doggie style sex and saying, fuck me harder, is not unusual or rare.


There was never any question about it being unusual or rare. That's not what they had to consider.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 5, 2016)

He got away with it because he's rich the super new evidence was his victim liked sex.
  Not that she engaged in threesomes or was up for a bit mate can have a go as well


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2016)

likesfish said:


> He got away with it because he's rich the super new evidence was his victim liked sex.
> Not that she engaged in threesomes or was up for a bit mate can have a go as well


So he got away with it despite having his reputation trashed, becoming almost universally loathed and spending a couple of years in prison

Not my idea of getting away with something


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 5, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> So he got away with it despite having his reputation trashed, becoming almost universally loathed and spending a couple of years in prison
> 
> Not my idea of getting away with something




Good


As said up thread, had that been my daughter he'd done that to the only court involved would have been the coroner's as they determined Evans died chocking on his severed genitals.


----------



## Athos (Feb 9, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> ...
> 
> You're barking up the wrong tree here regarding s41.
> 
> ...





Spymaster said:


> To be clear, *my current position is that *the case shouldn't have been brought in the first place, and that *the CofA shouldn't have allowed the new evidence *that led to the second.


 from: farewell tara palmer-tomkinson

My emphasis.


I'm glad to see that you've had a complete and utter u-turn on this, Spymaster.


----------



## ffsear (Feb 9, 2017)

Pardew


----------



## hash tag (Apr 24, 2017)

So he is back in the championship next season with the Blades Ched Evans: Sheffield United set to re-sign striker from Chesterfield
Difficult to know what to say really


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 24, 2017)

hash tag said:


> So he is back in the championship next season with the Blades Ched Evans: Sheffield United set to re-sign striker from Chesterfield
> Difficult to know what to say really



Grubby fuckers, SUFC. He's not even that good at football.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 24, 2017)

hash tag said:


> So he is back in the championship next season with the Blades Ched Evans: Sheffield United set to re-sign striker from Chesterfield
> Difficult to know what to say really


Will put a tenner on sufc relegation


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 24, 2017)

Athos said:


> from: farewell tara palmer-tomkinson
> 
> My emphasis.
> 
> ...


What's your position now Spymaster


----------



## Athos (Apr 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> What's your position now Spymaster



You shit stirrer!


----------



## Corax (Apr 24, 2017)

hash tag said:


> So he is back in the championship next season with the Blades Ched Evans: Sheffield United set to re-sign striker from Chesterfield
> Difficult to know what to say really


I dunno.  It 'feels' wrong, but does that mean I'm saying anyone accused of a sex crime should only be allowed to work in the salt mines thereafter?  I can't find a mental foothold on this one.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> What's your position now Spymaster


On him getting signed again? 

If clubs want to be associated with the grubby fucker, that's up to them. Wouldn't want him at Chelsea.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> On him getting signed again?
> 
> If clubs want to be associated with the grubby fucker, that's up to them. Wouldn't want him at Chelsea.


Dunno, seems just the sort of player I'd associate with that nefandous club


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 24, 2017)

I am assuming this will be a board decision and not down to the manager?


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 24, 2017)

Just had a quick search and it seems Wilder has been keeping his cards close to his chest, re Evans since November!


----------



## The Octagon (Apr 24, 2017)

Even speaking as a Wednesday fan, this seems spectacularly poor judgment from the United board. 

They've just won their league at a canter and they're going to blow that positive vibe / PR / whatever, on a player that's clearly not the same as he was 6 years ago and is likely to implode under the spotlight and (deserved) abuse coming his way.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 24, 2017)

Corax said:


> I dunno.  It 'feels' wrong, but does that mean I'm saying anyone accused of a sex crime should only be allowed to work in the salt mines thereafter?  I can't find a mental foothold on this one.



he was aquitted during an appeal trial in which the womans(who didn't even bring the case) sexual history was allowed to be presented as evidence. It amounted to 'she likes it rough'

him and his mrs are mining salt CTR


----------



## JTG (Apr 24, 2017)

The Octagon said:


> Even speaking as a Wednesday fan, this seems spectacularly poor judgment from the United board.
> 
> They've just won their league at a canter and they're going to blow that positive vibe / PR / whatever, on a player that's clearly not the same as he was 6 years ago and is likely to implode under the spotlight and (deserved) abuse coming his way.


From a footballing point of view it's weird. He's not been that good at Chesterfield who have just been relegated from the division United have finished top of.

Was somebody on a promise to sign him once he'd put in a few months relatively away from the spotlight?


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 24, 2017)

I missed football heaven on radio deedar tonight, I wonder if Keith Edwards had much to say?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Apr 24, 2017)

Well the FiL had the wealth to get him cleared on a retrial. Perhaps his wealth/power is influencing his welcome back into his career.


----------



## The Octagon (Apr 25, 2017)

JTG said:


> From a footballing point of view it's weird. He's not been that good at Chesterfield who have just been relegated from the division United have finished top of.
> 
> *Was somebody on a promise to sign him once he'd put in a few months relatively away from the spotlight?*



Seems to be the prevailing theory, this has been in the works for a while, Chesterfield take the initial heat and then make £500,000 on a player who's barely done anything for them. 

All a bit sordid to say the least.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 25, 2017)

Broadly agreeing with JTG  -- I can scarcely believe that Sheffield United really think the scumbag can be much of an asset to them any more 

Teams going up to the Championship should be looking for discards from teams who've just been promoted to Premier, discards who are still good and can score goals, but discards from promoted teams who can now afford better/bigger players, or fringe players from established teams in their own (new) League ....

And/or try to buy players from teams who've just missed out on a playoff promotion and who now want to spend and strengthen for another promotion shot next time.

Etc, etc.

Instead of buying shit, injury-prone** scumbags who will bring nothing but grief to the club publicity wise and otherwise.

**Not necessarily just on the pitch either


----------



## Wilf (Apr 25, 2017)

Implication here is that it's a big fuck you to the world/anybody who moaned about them having a nonce on the staff:
Why are Sheffield United so desperate to re-sign Ched Evans? | John Ashdown


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 26, 2017)

Good insight. Getting an actual Sheffield United fan to comment's a good move -- and he's clearly very anti-Evans himself, thankfully.

What utter arseholes there seem to be among their fanbase and in the management/ownership. Fucking idiots


----------



## Wilf (Apr 26, 2017)

10 cautioned for naming his victim
Ched Evans: 10 men cautioned for revealing identity of accuser


----------



## hash tag (May 18, 2017)

*Ched Evans warns women about 'putting themselves in danger' by drinking because there's 'genuine rapists out there'*

Ched Evans warns women about drinking because of 'genuine rapists out there'


----------



## Athos (May 18, 2017)

Interesting bit in that story about the Attorney General suggesting that what happened in this case could prompt a change in the law to prevent victims' sexual histories being used in that way.


----------



## hash tag (May 18, 2017)

I thought that change of law was already being discussed as a resukt of his last hearing?


----------

