Ched Evans

[JackanorySFC]

A 'Nonce' is a paedophile is it not? Now that's pretty libellous.

 

Found it interesting that this isn't the first time that the girl has accused someone of raping her...

 

NONCE means "not on normal courtyard excersise". A "privilege" reserved for the most vile inmates, peados and rapists. So your saying its fine what he did? Frankly that makes me sick. I have a good mate that has spent a lot of time travelling with Evans, the guy has a disgusting view of women, the stories I've heard are shocking. I would not trust him to spend any time with a female family member or friend of mine unattended. Would you?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

NONCE means "not on normal courtyard excersise". A "privilege" reserved for the most vile inmates, peados and rapists. So your saying its fine what he did? Frankly that makes me sick. I have a good mate that has spent a lot of time travelling with Evans, the guy has a disgusting view of women, the stories I've heard are shocking. I would not trust him to spend any time with a female family member or friend of mine unattended. Would you?

 

How the hell have you come to that conclusion? Read my other posts before coming to ridiculous conclusions please.

[JackanorySFC]

How the hell have you come to that conclusion? Read my other posts before coming to ridiculous conclusions please.

 

Just don't like the idea of "playing devils advocate" with a rape victim that has had to move 5 times due the actions of morons doing exactly that and ignoring the judge and jury. All well and good saying you're just asking questions buts that's exactly what the jury did, at the end of the day think of the victim eh, this is a proven rape victim's life you're speculating over here.

 

The bloke is a nonce, absolute scum, lowest of the low.

[bridge too far]

BBC reporting saying he can't resume career abroad (Ministry of Justice barring him from doing so)

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Just don't like the idea of "playing devils advocate" with a rape victim that has had to move 5 times due the actions of morons doing exactly that and ignoring the judge and jury. All well and good saying you're just asking questions buts that's exactly what the jury did, at the end of the day think of the victim eh, this is a proven rape victim's life you're speculating over here.

 

The bloke is a nonce, absolute scum, lowest of the low.

 

And that he may be. But as a law graduate (as a minor mind) you learn to look directly at the facts and not at the emotional part of things and I personally find the judgement inconsistent. If he is subsequently found not guilty through a successful appeal will he still be a nonce?

 

Also, and not trying to denigrate it, at least she cannot remember any of it whatsoever, so there should be no lasting psychological damage to her.

[Verbal]

And that he may be. But as a law graduate (as a minor mind) you learn to look directly at the facts and not at the emotional part of things and I personally find the judgement inconsistent. If he is subsequently found not guilty through a successful appeal will he still be a nonce?

 

Also, and not trying to denigrate it, at least she cannot remember any of it whatsoever, so there should be no lasting psychological damage to her.

 

Then I'm confused. You've said that you're playing devil's advocate, but to point out what you think of as inconsistencies isn't playing devil's advocate at all - it's judging the case to be seriously flawed. Period. If you think the latter, then you must have read the entire court transcript, and not just the highly truncated media reports (even legal media reports) of the case. Is that really the case?

 

And It's not playing devil's advocate to state as if some kind of fact that the victim has suffered no psychological ill-effects. Only a professional psychologist consulting with the victim herself is in a position to make a statement like that, and even then it would probably be heavily qualified. It may seem to be some sort of logical conclusion to you, but bystander 'logic' and first-hand experience are often (mostly) two wildly different things.

[CB Saint]

What do you do? Lock yourself away? She says she thinks her drink was spiked. Hard to prove either way. I don't know what happened previously but on this occasion she says she has no recollection of what happened and did not accuse anyone of raping her. What about Evans? He walks in, nails someone he has never met before when she was very clearly intoxicated then walks out again. Don't you think he left himself in a vulnerable position??? You seem to be firmly in the camp of if you go out and get hammered you deserve whatever happens to you?

 

More often than not, people who said their drinks were spiked had quite simply drank too much. Evans might have a vile view of women but it is a bit far fetched that he would rohypnol the girl.

 

Even if he does wangle his way out of this on appeal, the simple fact is he took advantage of a girl who would have been quite clearly off her face and was in no fit state to give consent. Either way, that makes him an arsehole in my opinion.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Then I'm confused. You've said that you're playing devil's advocate, but to point out what you think of as inconsistencies isn't playing devil's advocate at all - it's judging the case to be seriously flawed. Period. If you think the latter, then you must have read the entire court transcript, and not just the highly truncated media reports (even legal media reports) of the case. Is that really the case?

 

And It's not playing devil's advocate to state as if some kind of fact that the victim has suffered no psychological ill-effects. Only a professional psychologist consulting with the victim herself is in a position to make a statement like that, and even then it would probably be heavily qualified. It may seem to be some sort of logical conclusion to you, but bystander 'logic' and first-hand experience are often (mostly) two wildly different things.

 

I agree, that bit is not devils advocate, that is my opinion. In regards to the case, my opinion is he is guilty, but if he is guilty then so is the other guy, and i guarantee if they were tried together they would both be guilty. But that sort of inconsistency can see appeals become succesful, and that is the worry in this situation.

 

I have said many times on this thread that I haven't read the full case notes, but surely people can still judge even though we don't have 100% of the facts (see post 451).

 

However, I also think OJ was guilty, and i didn't read all those case notes. In fact unless we are in possession of 100% of facts in ALL situations are you saying we are not allowed to form opinions? A little bit of a dangerous precedent to set.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

I agree, that bit is not devils advocate, that is my opinion. In regards to the case, my opinion is he is guilty, but if he is guilty then so is the other guy, and i guarantee if they were tried together they would both be guilty. But that sort of inconsistency can see appeals become succesful, and that is the worry in this situation.

 

I have said many times on this thread that I haven't read the full case notes, but surely people can still judge even though we don't have 100% of the facts (see post 451).

 

However, I also think OJ was guilty, and i didn't read all those case notes. In fact unless we are in possession of 100% of facts in ALL situations are you saying we are not allowed to form opinions? A little bit of a dangerous precedent to set.

 

I'm not so sure on them both being guilty. It was my understanding that she met the first guy, went back to the hotel with him and then Ched Evans (totally sober btw) showed up after being told the first guy was going to to a hotel with a drunk girl.

 

It's conceivable that she did consent to the first guy, but not CE. Heck, even if he did come into the room whilst the other two were at it and asked if he could join in you would still have to question whether she is really in a state to give full consent. If she was naked and drunk in a room with two men (athlete's nonetheless) with their mates outside trying to film (I'm not 100% on if she was aware of this) she not really have felt she could have said no anyway. Just to clarify THIS IS PURELY SPECULATION, and a possible reason why one man may have been found guilty and the other not.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I'm not so sure on them both being guilty. It was my understanding that she met the first guy, went back to the hotel with him and then Ched Evans (totally sober btw) showed up after being told the first guy was going to to a hotel with a drunk girl.

 

It's conceivable that she did consent to the first guy, but not CE. Heck, even if he did come into the room whilst the other two were at it and asked if he could join in you would still have to question whether she is really in a state to give full consent. If she was naked and drunk in a room with two men (athlete's nonetheless) with their mates outside trying to film (I'm not 100% on if she was aware of this) she not really have felt she could have said no anyway. Just to clarify THIS IS PURELY SPECULATION, and a possible reason why one man may have been found guilty and the other not.

 

But if she was not in the state to give consent to CE then she was surely not in a state two hours earlier to give consent. I cannot remember fully but I believe that no alcohol was consumed after entering the room, and she was compus mentus enough to be giving oral to the first bloke.

 

The biggest issue is she said she couldn't remember if she consented to CE, and the thought is that as she says she couldn't remember she wasn't in a state to consent. But what if CE was under the impression, 100%, that she consented?

[aintforever]

But what if CE was under the impression, 100%, that she consented?

 

I guess he wouldn't have been convicted of rape?

[sadoldgit]

More often than not, people who said their drinks were spiked had quite simply drank too much. Evans might have a vile view of women but it is a bit far fetched that he would rohypnol the girl.

 

Even if he does wangle his way out of this on appeal, the simple fact is he took advantage of a girl who would have been quite clearly off her face and was in no fit state to give consent. Either way, that makes him an arsehole in my opinion.

 

If her drink was spiked it could have happened earlier in the evening. Even if not she was by evidence of CCTV footage clearly out of it and I agree with what you say about Evans taking advantage.

[sadoldgit]

But if she was not in the state to give consent to CE then she was surely not in a state two hours earlier to give consent. I cannot remember fully but I believe that no alcohol was consumed after entering the room, and she was compus mentus enough to be giving oral to the first bloke.

 

The biggest issue is she said she couldn't remember if she consented to CE, and the thought is that as she says she couldn't remember she wasn't in a state to consent. But what if CE was under the impression, 100%, that she consented?

 

She said she had no recollection of what happened so that includes no recollection of consenting to either of them. Just because she was able to perform oral (she was also able to walk) it doesn't mean to say she was in control of what she was doing. I know what you are saying about the other guy but can only assume that the jury figured that because she had spent more time with the other guy and had travelled to the hotel with him that was enough for them to consider that she was up for it with him. As I have said before, I think he is very lucky not to have been convicted himself.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

But if she was not in the state to give consent to CE then she was surely not in a state two hours earlier to give consent. I cannot remember fully but I believe that no alcohol was consumed after entering the room, and she was compus mentus enough to be giving oral to the first bloke.

 

The biggest issue is she said she couldn't remember if she consented to CE, and the thought is that as she says she couldn't remember she wasn't in a state to consent. But what if CE was under the impression, 100%, that she consented?

 

I think you've missed my point, or I didn't explain clearly enough - if so apologies.

 

Forget alcohol completely. What I was trying to get at was, it may possibly be seen that (sober or not) if the girl was engaged in sexual activities with man #1, another man turning up whilst they were in the act, trying to get involved with another group of guys watching on may have caused undue pressure or coercion. She may have felt like she had no choice but to give consent. She may have feel intimidated by the entire situation. As I said, these are two professional athletes (I believe the first guy was a footballer too? Sorry if I have this incorrect) so it's a fair assumption to think they are two pretty strong guys, you can see why somebody may have felt intimidated in that scenario.

 

Again, this is hypothetical speculation. I do not know if this is exactly how it happened, and I am not saying this is exactly how it happened. In my opinion, IF this is how it happened I would suggest the first guy was also culpable of some offence (I'm not a legal expert by any stretch, and do not claim to be). However, I guess it could be possible that the court may see his act as consensual due to him having met her first and her having (supposedly) consented to going to the hotel with him.

Edited 3 January, 2015 by KelvinsRightGlove
Deleted some of this. Went off on a tangent.

[JackanorySFC]

And that he may be. But as a law graduate (as a minor mind) you learn to look directly at the facts and not at the emotional part of things and I personally find the judgement inconsistent. If he is subsequently found not guilty through a successful appeal will he still be a nonce?

 

Also, and not trying to denigrate it, at least she cannot remember any of it whatsoever, so there should be no lasting psychological damage to her.

 

You're a law graduate that doesn't understand what NONCE stands for? Did you drop it or what? Your contempt for the victim disgusts me by the way. In A level law (or whatever it was you studied before you dropped out), you should learn to abide by the judge and jury or the accused peer's. The fact you're defending a vile human being like that nasty woman hating piece of scum Evans is bad enough, but accusing the victim, proven, not alleged, is the lowest of the low. You're a wrongun mush.

 

You might find this entertaining or whatever, but I ask you 1 simple question:

 

Would you let your daughter, niece or any other young family member alone with Ched Evans unsupervised ?

Edited 4 January, 2015 by JackanorySFC

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I guess he wouldn't have been convicted of rape?

 

Not at all, as he can't prove it either way.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I think you've missed my point, or I didn't explain clearly enough - if so apologies.

 

Forget alcohol completely. What I was trying to get at was, it may possibly be seen that (sober or not) if the girl was engaged in sexual activities with man #1, another man turning up whilst they were in the act, trying to get involved with another group of guys watching on may have caused undue pressure or coercion. She may have felt like she had no choice but to give consent. She may have feel intimidated by the entire situation. As I said, these are two professional athletes (I believe the first guy was a footballer too? Sorry if I have this incorrect) so it's a fair assumption to think they are two pretty strong guys, you can see why somebody may have felt intimidated in that scenario.

 

Again, this is hypothetical speculation. I do not know if this is exactly how it happened, and I am not saying this is exactly how it happened. In my opinion, IF this is how it happened I would suggest the first guy was also culpable of some offence (I'm not a legal expert by any stretch, and do not claim to be). However, I guess it could be possible that the court may see his act as consensual due to him having met her first and her having (supposedly) consented to going to the hotel with him.

 

Oh, I see what you mean. More the pressure of others around, I see that.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

You're a law graduate that doesn't understand what NONCE stands for? Did you drop it or what? Your contempt for the victim disgusts me by the way. In A level law (or whatever it was you studied before you dropped out), you should learn to abide by the judge and jury or the accused peer's. The fact you're defending a vile human being like that nasty woman hating piece of scum Evans is bad enough, but accusing the victim, proven, not alleged, is the lowest of the low. You're a wrongun mush.

 

You might find this entertaining or whatever, but I ask you 1 simple question:

 

Would you let your daughter, niece or any other young family member alone with Ched Evans unsupervised ?

 

First of all, I most certainly did not drop it. I studied tort, media, property, contract and lastly criminal law, and funnily enough, prison slang never came up. I am going to make an assumption here that you never went to university, as you seem to have no idea what you learn about at university when doing a degree. One thing you don't tend to learn about is slang used in prison - you don't learn about prisons when doing a law degree - why would you? It's like doing a physics degree and then learning about stand terms used at the Science Museum.

 

Just to let you know, the first thing you learn in Law is the route through the Courts, and essentially the fact that you can appeal convictions, against what the judge and jury have concluded, which is far by abiding by it UNTIL all avenues have been exhausted.

 

I love the fact you think I'm defending him. I will repeat this for about the 10th time on this thread as you seem to have an issue with reading - I assumed you dropped out of school before you finished - I THINK CHED EVANS IS GUILTY. However, I think the fact that his mate was found 'not guilty' could lead to his conviction being quashed - but we will see. His lawyers, far better legal minds than you or I obviously think this too.

 

From what you are saying there has never been a miscarriage of justice (and I'm not saying there has here) in the history of the courts. You honestly believe that?

 

I don't really even know why I am replying to you, you are yet to write a decent riposte, and you don't seem to be able to accept nuances in peoples writing. But there we are, I will try, but I assume I'll get the normal 'my god, you're a ****ing nonce mush, can't believe you want CE to rape your mum as you obviously think she forced herself on him innit' response.

Edited 4 January, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff

[hutch]

Unusually. I can agree with UJ's point. I too think he's guilty, but I think there is a strong case that the law might have been stretched too far in order to convict him.

 

As somebody posted further up this page, Evans is most certainly a first degree arsehole if nothing worse.

 

But we should also be very careful not to let young girls think that the law will protect them from the consequences of getting themselves blind drunk and then going to hotel rooms in the middle of the night with strange men.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Unusually. I can agree with UJ's point. I too think he's guilty, but I think there is a strong case that the law might have been stretched too far in order to convict him.

 

As somebody posted further up this page, Evans is most certainly a first degree arsehole if nothing worse.

 

But we should also be very careful not to let young girls think that the law will protect them from the consequences of getting themselves blind drunk and then going to hotel rooms in the middle of the night with strange men.

 

The conviction rate for rape is very low due to the difficulty in convicting rapists as it such a subjective thing. Hopefully the media coverage of this guilty conviction won't do what you say and allow girls to feel protected in this situation.

[shurlock]

First of all, I most certainly did not drop it. I studied tort, media, property, contract and lastly criminal law, and funnily enough, prison slang never came up. I am going to make an assumption here that you never went to university, as you seem to have no idea what you learn about at university when doing a degree. One thing you don't tend to learn about is slang used in prison - you don't learn about prisons when doing a law degree - why would you? It's like doing a physics degree and then learning about stand terms used at the Science Museum.

 

Just to let you know, the first thing you learn in Law is the route through the Courts, and essentially the fact that you can appeal convictions, against what the judge and jury have concluded, which is far by abiding by it UNTIL all avenues have been exhausted.

 

I love the fact you think I'm defending him. I will repeat this for about the 10th time on this thread as you seem to have an issue with reading - I assumed you dropped out of school before you finished - I THINK CHED EVANS IS GUILTY. However, I think the fact that his mate was found 'not guilty' could lead to his conviction being quashed - but we will see. His lawyers, far better legal minds than you or I obviously think this too.

 

From what you are saying there has never been a miscarriage of justice (and I'm not saying there has here) in the history of the courts. You honestly believe that?

 

I don't really even know why I am replying to you, you are yet to write a decent riposte, and you don't seem to be able to accept nuances in peoples writing. But there we are, I will try, but I assume I'll get the normal 'my god, you're a ****ing nonce mush, can't believe you want CE to rape your mum as you obviously think she forced herself on him innit' response.

 

Not sure what your Mickey Mouse law certificate or your Dellboy Latin have got to do with anything. I'm going to make the assumption that you didn't study law in any real depth given legal reasoning takes the facts for granted.

 

As the facts are known and uncontroversial ex ante, the main game is to apply them creatively to case law - nice intellectual gymnastics but a quaint fiction and absolutely no use when having to think through inconsistencies in fact and how to interpret them which is all anyone is doing here, some more convincingly than others. And perhaps one reason why you feel you have to lean so hard on bull**** credentials to give yourself a fighting chance.

Edited 4 January, 2015 by shurlock

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Not sure what your Mickey Mouse law certificate or your Dellboy Latin have got to do with anything. I'm going to make the assumption that you didn't study law in any real depth given legal reasoning takes the facts for granted.

 

As the facts are known and uncontroversial ex ante, the main game is to apply them creatively to case law - nice intellectual gymnastics but a quaint fiction and absolutely no use when having to think through inconsistencies in fact and how to interpret them which is all anyone is doing here, some more convincingly than others. And perhaps one reason why you feel you have to lean so hard on bull**** credentials to give yourself a fighting chance.

 

Sorry Shurlock, what part of my argument are you disagreeing with? Where have I said the facts are not known? I have mentioned I do not know all the facts, but that's it. And what Latin did I use in that post? Seems like your usual "It's UJ posting, I MUST disagree with everything he says cos he made me look like an idiot in the Summer" rhetoric.

 

The only reason I talked about my 'credentials' was due to the fact that I wanted to explain why I am looking at this unemotionally, no other reason but that. I was then accused of dropping out because I didnt know 'nonce' applied to BOTH paedophiles and sex offenders.

Edited 4 January, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff

[CB Fry]

Looks like he's signing for Oldham. Or Barnsley. Or someone in L1, tomorrow.

 

Get your half and half scarfs ready, Saints Forum Chedettes.

[sadoldgit]

The conviction rate for rape is very low due to the difficulty in convicting rapists as it such a subjective thing. Hopefully the media coverage of this guilty conviction won't do what you say and allow girls to feel protected in this situation.

 

Isnt that the point of the law though, to protect vulnerable people? Just because someone happens to be with someone, wherever that is, if they are not in a state to be able to consent then it doesn't give the other person the right to rape them.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Looks like he's signing for Oldham. Or Barnsley. Or someone in L1, tomorrow.

 

Get your half and half scarfs ready, Saints Forum Chedettes.

 

I'm very surprised that any club would take him on. He should have the right to be a footballer, but no club should take him on.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Isnt that the point of the law though, to protect vulnerable people? Just because someone happens to be with someone, wherever that is, if they are not in a state to be able to consent then it doesn't give the other person the right to rape them.

 

Oh completely, it's bad that it's that low.

[shurlock]

Sorry Shurlock, what part of my argument are you disagreeing with? Where have I said the facts are not known? I have mentioned I do not know all the facts, but that's it. And what Latin did I use in that post? Seems like your usual "It's UJ posting, I MUST disagree with everything he says cos he made me look like an idiot in the Summer" rhetoric.

 

The only reason I talked about my 'credentials' was due to the fact that I wanted to explain why I am looking at this unemotionally, no other reason but that. I was then accused of dropping out because I didnt know 'nonce' applied to BOTH paedophiles and sex offenders.

 

Don't flatter yourself - I disagree with you because you're wrong as you were persistently wrong during the summer. The rest is in your dim little head. Non compus mentus, you might say (though I would insist on the correct declension)

 

No my point is that studying law in itself which is an extremely rarefied and abstract exercise where the facts are always known in advance doesn't make you, me or the next man anymore qualified to speculate on the merits of this case. On one level, quite the opposite.

Edited 4 January, 2015 by shurlock

[sadoldgit]

It is a bit like the argument that if a girl is wearing "provocative" clothes then she is clearly asking for it. Many years ago a friend of mine was raped at a music festival. She went to find a police officer to report it and she was dressed in a tight t shirt and shorts. When she said she had been raped he said I am not surprised dressed like that.

 

I agree that girls should be careful but that is the problem. People do go out to have a good time and often have too much to drink. It doesn't give anyone else the right to have sex with them though if they are in no fit state to make an informed decision and that is what the Evans case is all about. I do agree with you that I am surprised too that his buddy got away with it.

 

As a father of three teenage girls myself, I not only have to worry that they are looking after themselves, but I have to worry that the male friends they hang out with look after them properly too. Fortunately none of them drink or do drugs at the moment as far as I know but you only have to find yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time to end up with trouble. The CPS people working in the Rape and Serious Sexual Offences teams are massively overworked sadly.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Don't flatter yourself - I disagree with you because you're wrong as you were persistently wrong during the summer. The rest is in your dim little head. Non compus mentus, you might say (though I would insist on the correct declension)

 

No my point is that studying law in itself which is an extremely rarefied and abstract exercise where the facts are always known in advance doesn't make you, me or the next man anymore qualified to speculate on the merits of this case. On one level, quite the opposite.

 

Where did I say it does? I certainly wouldn't say that as it's been 8 years since I picked up a Law textbook and i am way out of practice for that. Effectively your arguing with no-one here, and certainly not me, which is why it seems to me that you're inventing things so you can have a go at me.

 

From what you have said above does that mean we're not allowed to speculate on it all? How about the OJ case, are we not allowed to speculate on that either? I didn't realise you were all for sensorship.

 

Also, you can level a lot at me, but wrong during the Summer, I think not. All about keeping your head whilst the others around you lose theirs.

Edited 4 January, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff

[Unbelievable Jeff]

It is a bit like the argument that if a girl is wearing "provocative" clothes then she is clearly asking for it. Many years ago a friend of mine was raped at a music festival. She went to find a police officer to report it and she was dressed in a tight t shirt and shorts. When she said she had been raped he said I am not surprised dressed like that.

 

I agree that girls should be careful but that is the problem. People do go out to have a good time and often have too much to drink. It doesn't give anyone else the right to have sex with them though if they are in no fit state to make an informed decision and that is what the Evans case is all about. I do agree with you that I am surprised too that his buddy got away with it.

 

As a father of three teenage girls myself, I not only have to worry that they are looking after themselves, but I have to worry that the male friends they hang out with look after them properly too. Fortunately none of them drink or do drugs at the moment as far as I know but you only have to find yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time to end up with trouble. The CPS people working in the Rape and Serious Sexual Offences teams are massively overworked sadly.

 

That is awful

[KelvinsRightGlove]

It is a bit like the argument that if a girl is wearing "provocative" clothes then she is clearly asking for it. Many years ago a friend of mine was raped at a music festival. She went to find a police officer to report it and she was dressed in a tight t shirt and shorts. When she said she had been raped he said I am not surprised dressed like that.

 

No no no SoG, that's the wimens lib movement got into your head mate. No such thing as institutional sexism, no sir. Must be true, the man who worships the man who leads a party that voted against making it illegal for a man to rape his wife (or vice versa) said so.

 

Edit: You know, this is a really sexist view point. It's one we should find more offensive. Not just because of how crass and disgusting it is to blame a victim for her attack. But, also because of how it paints men. This is a common levelled accusation against victims (goes with the points below, why would anyone submit themselves to that for fun?), but what it really is saying is Men are rapists in waiting. Men are slaves to their sexual desires, if we see a woman dressed in a slightly revealing manner - we will attack. We have not one ounce of self-control, if we see a female body, we lose all control. Frankly, that is disgusting and yes, awfully fúcking sexist. I am not some animal that cannot control myself if I see a girl dressed in a certain way, and I'd like to think most other men are the same.

Edited 4 January, 2015 by KelvinsRightGlove

[KelvinsRightGlove]

That is awful

 

This is why I also struggle to understand the whole, she must be lying angle. Or that all these girls are just making up being raped. For what reason, what benefit?

 

Seems some posters on here are trying to frame that actually its the men we need to worry about, as these rampant evil nasty lying women are going to have us all locked up as rapists. Never mind the thousands of unsolved sexual attacks that happen (mostly against women, but men also) every single year. No, we must frame the men as the real victims here, woe is us fellas!

 

And yeah, fûck Oldham or Barnsley or whoever signs him to be honest. The man is scum. I don't care what anyone says about served his time, blah blah. That does not give you the right to return to your coveted job. How many other people would be able to stroll back into any job of their choosing after a rape conviction? I wouldn't, and I doubt many others would.

[Halo Stickman]

Isnt that the point of the law though, to protect vulnerable people? Just because someone happens to be with someone, wherever that is, if they are not in a state to be able to consent then it doesn't give the other person the right to rape them.

 

Speaking very much as a layman, it appears to me that the judicial position on intoxication-and-informed-consent has been confused by the 2007 Appeal Court Ruling on R v Bree.

 

The Court of Appeal held that

“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… 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.”

 

http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/cases/criminallawcases.php

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1546789/Drunk-women-can-consent-to-sex-judges-rule.html

[sadoldgit]

Halo, a friend of mine heads up a RASSO unit in Kent. I'll have a word with her about the Bree ruling.

 

As an aside to the rape conviction, I bothers me that so many young women seem so desperate to become a WAG that they will let their partners do what the hell they like. This would not seem the first time Evans booked a room for an evening without any intention of spending the night. He is said to have boasted to the police that he could have had any of the girls in the clubs. Classy. His girlfriend looks very sweet and it is nice that she has stood by him. She knows her Ched and he would not rape anyone. No dear, he would book a room for him and his mate, him and his mate would go out on the pull. He was quite happy to go to the hotel where his mate had taken a woman, walk into the room, perform sex acts on this woman and walk out again but he is a decent guy and she will stand by him because he is not a rapist. What on earth goes through her mind? Did her persuade her that this was a one off - a momentary lapse because of all of the pressure he is under at work? Men get away with crap because women let them. Once you let yourself become a doormat don't be surprised if people wipe their feet on you. It is a shame that she hasn't got the self worth to stand up and say that she may not think that he is guilty of rape, but he is certainly guilty of being a scumbag, dump him and find a guy who doesn't behave like that.

[buctootim]

Speaking very much as a layman, it appears to me that the judicial position on intoxication-and-informed-consent has been confused by the 2007 Appeal Court Ruling on R v Bree.

 

Also speaking very much as a layman, I don't see why. Basically the ruling says that if she is so drunk she is incapacitated then she cannot consent to sex - so its rape. However the simple fact she has drunk quite a lot does not in itself mean intercourse is rape - ie incapacity is the defining factor, not how much alcohol she has consumed.

Edited 4 January, 2015 by buctootim

[CB Fry]

BBC saying it's Oldham he's signing for.

 

Joe Royle turning in his grave.

[Hatch]

BBC saying it's Oldham he's signing for.

 

Joe Royle turning in his grave.

They've got form for this.

 

they signed Lee HUghes when he came out of prison for murder.

[The Kraken]

There's been an online petition set up protesting the move, currently 5,000 signatures gained at one a second in the 90 minutes since it was set up.

[melmacian_saint]

BBC saying it's Oldham he's signing for.

 

Joe Royle turning in his grave.

 

Joe Royle is alive...

[bridge too far]

Here's the link to the petition

 

https://www.change.org/p/simon-corney-chairman-of-oldham-athletic-fc-refuse-to-sign-rapist-ched-evans?recruiter=20149350&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition

[CB Fry]

Joe Royle is alive...

 

I know.

[Hatch]

Here's the link to the petition

 

https://www.change.org/p/simon-corney-chairman-of-oldham-athletic-fc-refuse-to-sign-rapist-ched-evans?recruiter=20149350&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition

 

 

signed it, but why the hell do they want money for, what does that go to ?

[bridge too far]

signed it, but why the hell do they want money for, what does that go to ?

 

 

 

Change Org is a very powerful weapon in promoting the voices of ordinary people but it runs on a shoestring I understand. So any donations go towards supporting Change.Org and not towards a particular campaign.

[CB Fry]

BBC saying Oldham now getting cold feet.

 

The board didn't anticipate the reaction, apparently. Dear god.

[sussexsaint]

Portsmouth to step in in 5...4...3...

[Halo Stickman]

Also speaking very much as a layman, I don't see why. Basically the ruling says that if she is so drunk she is incapacitated then she cannot consent to sex - so its rape. However the simple fact she has drunk quite a lot does not in itself mean intercourse is rape - ie incapacity is the defining factor, not how much alcohol she has consumed.

 

Yes, but as regards capacity-to-give-informed-consent-under-the-influence-of-intoxicants, what is the legal definition of ‘capacity’, and how is it measured? At what legally defined point does capacity become incapacity? These are rhetorical questions, btw.

 

Every right-minded person will use their own judgement and set their own limits as regards informed-consent-and-intoxicants; but the legal viewpoint regarding this issue is too vague, imo – although how best to clarify it, I’ve no idea.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Oldham club sponsors, Verlin, say they will 'terminate any involvement with club' if they sign Ched Evans. According to Sky

Edited 5 January, 2015 by KelvinsRightGlove

[sadoldgit]

But how do they know, 2 hours later, when conceivable she had sobered up more, that she did not consent to sex with him. There must be additional evidence that you or I haven't read.

 

She said she woke up alone and had no recollection of what had happened to her. If she had woken and had consented I assume she would have remembered that.

[Whitey Grandad]

She said she woke up alone and had no recollection of what had happened to her. If she had woken and had consented I assume she would have remembered that.

 

I've not been following this closely but... If she had no recollection how does she know what happened?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I've not been following this closely but... If she had no recollection how does she know what happened?

 

I think a video was made of it.

 

In response to SOG, she says she can't remember anything from the night, including giving oral and having sex with the first bloke I believe. That's where the inconsistency is.