sadoldgit

I agree 100% with this and that is the problem we face because many others would think the same way as Evans. Despite it being 2014 there still seems a perception in some quarters that women are fair game if they are incapacitated by drink/drugs.

Maybe. It was the way you put it.

What is your point? Just because this time it is Man City and not Tottenham it has more clout? What about the other dozens of transfer rumours? All going to happen? Have they made a bid? If not, worry about if and when they do.

Rooney has made the point himself, to be a "great" you have to produce the goods. That is you have to win a major trophy.

No.

Technically it is.

They got drunk. Just how drunk was she?

Rape is rape but there are degrees of sentencing that should reflect the severity of the rape. Consent is key. No consent, leave well alone no matter what has gone on before. We have had a successful rape prosecution involving a prostitute. Things are changing gradually but as this thread shows, there are still people who think that it is okay to f*ck someone even if they are not in control.

Not at all sure what the Great War has to do with a supermarket? Nevertheless, good piece in the Guardian a few days ago saying although the ad is beautifully shot and produced, it was sanitised. No blood, guts or sh*t all over the place and thus was "selling" a lie. Personally I think any mention of Christmas should be banned until December.

Ok for what it is worth I wouldn't want this guy playing for SFC.

I think it does. There are some on here who seem to think that he is innocent. Whatever anyone thinks of the verdict, he is still guilty of rape as things stand.

What I think doesn't matter does it? I am not going to stop going to their games. I am not going to stop buying replica shirts. It would just be my opinion.

It is an interesting case I agree. In any failed prosecution the Crown Advocate has to give reasons why and I would love to know why he thought Evans mate got off. I'd also love to read the case file as they always contain far more information that reach the papers.

What do you mean? You want to know exactly what the legal definition of rape is? And why do you get so arsey to people in your posts? You come across as a very angry person.

This point can be argued all day long but at the end of the day the only people who can make that call are his current employers or any future employers. Evans hasn't covered himself in glory since his release but that should not be the issue. He is free to work again but do people want someone like him working for them? That is their choice.

It isn't you are right, but it is robust. Rape cases are very difficult to bring to court, So much so that the CPS has specialist units to deal with them, A number never see a court because the evidence is so flimsy and there is not a realistic prospect of conviction. For this one to succeed a number of people had to be convinced of his guilt. None us were in court to hear the case for the defence and the prosecution. None of us were party to the deliberations of the jury. A lot of people have been convinced that he his guilty. Every contested case that goes to court has a defence case and a prosecution case and every defendant is innocent until proved guilty. Unless conviction are quashed the defendants remain guilty. If this conviction is overturned at some point Evans can rightly say he was not guilty of rape. Until that time, no matter what the columnist from the Telegraph or you and I think, the bloke is guilty of rape.

No I haven't but that is not to say it cant be done if it is in the public interest.

The thing is that the prisons are full of people who are "innocent." In his own mind he clearly is. In the eyes of the Criminal Justice System he is a convicted rapist.

I can only repeat what I have said before. The police have to be convinced. The CPS reviewing lawyer has to be convinced. The jury has to be convinced. They all were.

If the Court of Appeal have rejected it there must be very strong grounds to uphold the conviction.

My point was it might go with sailors, freshers etc on but there is a difference between consensual sex and rape and we are talking about rape.

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: 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.

If you read further back it is there. I was having a rational discussion. You didn't answer my question.

I managed the caseworkers who work on Crown Court cases. Up until recently that included caseworkers who dealt with Rape and Serious Sexual Offences (RASSO). I have had nothing to do with the case I should add. What I can tell you is the complainant first had to convince the police that she had been raped. The Reviewing Lawyer at the CPS would need to read the case and agree. And then the jury has to be convinced. It is no easy matter and for this rape case to have been successful a lot of people have had to agree that rape took place. Ched Evans is a convicted rapist.

The law. It says quite clearly under the circumstances in which it is deemed people cannot rationally consent to sex. Are you saying it is all right to sh*g someone who is completely out of it?