Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

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.
Click to expand...

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....
Click to expand...

This is a misstatement of the relevant law.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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 .
 
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 ?
Click to expand...
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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...
You can come to an opinion that the original verdict shouldn't have been quashed.
 
Athos said:
You can come to an opinion that the original verdict shouldn't have been quashed.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Athos said:
Based on the reasoning of the appeal decision, which was set out at length.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
See what I edited in to my last post (which crossed with your reply).
 
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?
Click to expand...

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 " ?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Rutita1 said:
Oh you were there? :)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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 " ?
Click to expand...
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 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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Bollocks.

Anyway, any answer to my question in post #3471?
 
Athos said:
Bollocks.

Anyway, any answer to my question in post #3471?
Click to expand...

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 .
 
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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 .
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
Athos said:
When it happens, I will, don't worry about that.

Anyway, about that question. The one where you're mask slipped.
Click to expand...

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 .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

HeAthen
BBC accused of antisemitism
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
4K
ska invita
ska invita
hitmouse
Rotten behaviour from Hello Fresh
Replies
2
Views
353
elbows
elbows
Pickman's model
Members of Britain's richest family get prison sentences
Replies
12
Views
755
stavros
S
NoXion
Porridge and crumpets included on extensive list of foods banned from TV ads before 9pm
2 3 4
Replies
95
Views
2K
Happy Tree
Happy Tree
Buddy Bradley
How long before we get a proper Tory-style sleaze gaffe from Labour?
Replies
0
Views
224
Buddy Bradley
Buddy Bradley
Back
Top Bottom