Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[bimble]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Nothing new here from you AFAICS.

What does this mean?

 

[Treacle Toes]

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]

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]

What does this mean?

As far as I can see

 

[trashpony]

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:

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.