Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[toggle]

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]

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]

on what basis am I wrong?

I've already explained why. More than once.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I ha

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?