Athos
Well-Known Member
I think they get a very clear message that they can away with having sex with a woman who is so drunk she won't remember anything, which, in many cases could be used as a cover for rape.
Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison
- Thread starter Bahnhof Strasse
- Start date
I think they get a very clear message that they can away with having sex with a woman who is so drunk she won't remember anything, which, in many cases could be used as a cover for rape.
trashpony
Hag
Unbiased? Bullshit.
There is a huge amount of evidence that rape victims often seek sexual encounters that they are in control of shortly after being raped. But obviously that doesn't fit with the slags don't get raped narrative you're writing
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
First take £50,000...
Treacle Toes
Time
The kind of men that book hotel rooms for their mates, then wait for a text saying 'i've got a girl; before heading over there to have sex. Yep, exactly those kinds of men.
Athos
Well-Known Member
But she wasn't behaving how a rape victim was supposed to behave!
Why does everyone who disagrees with you have to have "an agenda" (the implication being that they are serial misogynistic rape enablers)? Can't it just be possible that plenty of decent people think you're wrong too?
Did the appellate judges and and second trial jury have "an agenda" too?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
And the ccrc
Treacle Toes
Time
But why are you trying to complicate things with possiblities and detail? Supposedly it's really quite simple. Thick people like us should just accept that. Anti-feminists that we are. :/
Athos
Well-Known Member
No, but then the judges in the CoA and the second jury didn't show such determination to construt new arguments to support the same conclusion as the previous ones were cut away. Nor did they misrepresent what the evidence said. Nor did they speculate about stuff which it would have been improper for them to consider. Nor did they bend over backwards to interpret everything in Evans' favour.
bemused
Well-Known Member
So you do think that men will think it's a guide how to get away with rape?
Oh no, are we back to this again?
Looks like we are going to go again after all.
Totally dishonest of you.
Athos
Well-Known Member
I think that some will see it that way; many others will just have the message reinforced that it's very hard to be convicted of rape if you say there was consent.
Athos
Well-Known Member
No, we're not. I really don't want to get drawn into this with you again; we've been there, and it was fruitless; and we've been asked to stop. I should never have replied to you.
bimble
floofy
Yeah, if they're willing to risk a couple of years in prison and being denounced by the world at large as an utter scumbag, forever.
I honestly think that the only potential silver lining here is that just maybe the opposite is true - a lot of men will have read about this case and will now not risk sleeping with a drunk woman they've only just met.
One of the ugliest pro-Evans tweets I saw was "drunk women are cancer". It was retweeted lots of times. Like it or not, that's not 'a rapists charter'.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
Precisely. But thereafter she had no choice but to follow the path laid down for her by them. They were in charge. She was no longer victim, but their primary witness. So conservative attitudes with regard to social/sexual criteria to enhance the possibility of conviction would be encouraged.
Essentially she would have been coached - conditioned if you like - by both police/CPS as to what might or might not be 'helpful' to volunteer. So if for example Evans claimed X did such on such on the night in the question, the pressure would be on her to say she never ever would do 'such and such': not that kind of girl and so forth - even to the police/CPS.
And this reflex would be in operation long before she ever set foot in the witness box.
Once there, the danger under cross-examination is too go too far: to try and be too goody goody and get tripped up. Which is why the introduction of other lovers proved so devastating to her credibility in the end.
bimble
floofy
I am looking for the positive. My personal view is that its a disaster. Post above was to counter the idea that it will make men more likely to have sex with drunk women.A few minutes ago you thouht this case had been a disaster for women.
I think it will make them less likely to do so. For fear of being put in prison for a couple of years.
Last edited:
More like you should never have tried it on. You're attempting to bolster your position on our disagreement by stealth. You proved none of what you suggested and have accused absolutely everyone who has disagreed with you on this thread of having an agenda in attempt to shut down debate. Not just me.
Dishonest bollocks.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
She didn't go 'down the criminal route', it wasn't her decision to make. The police investigated and found someone in a situation often connected with rape and sexual assault. They investigated further and found that the woman had been picked up by one men and then joined by another. He admitted to lying any being deceptive to get what he wanted. The two of them also told the police about their two friends who were filming them through the window. There is very clearly potential for abuse to be happening. Add in the fact that she was very obviously drunk and staggering and it's pretty obvious there could be a case to answer.
Remind me just when you think they should have stopped bothering
Athos
Well-Known Member
More evidence-free speculation.
This wasn't about her credibility, since she'd never claimed not to have consented.
bimble
floofy
What does this mean? (lying to get what he wanted)?
Also, what makes you say she was 'picked up'? Rather than that she met someone?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Wow. It's all a cruel plot against...who exactly?
bimble
floofy
I think Joe Reilly is saying that if x was not beyond reasonable doubt a victim of the footballers she was certainly in effect a victim of the legal system.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Ok, that's your opinion, and I know it won't change. Obviously, I disagree. In any event, anyone who's interested to see what happened in our disagreement can read it for themselves, and I'm happy for them to reach their own conclusion.
But, given we've been asked by victims of sexual violence not to continue this spat, how about we agree to drop it? Let's resist the temptation to refer or reply to one another on this thread, eh?
trashpony
Hag
<ahem> Spymaster - you said you were going to take it to PMs?
I just wanted to point this out to the thread as it seems to be dominated by men:
Nearly every woman I know has experienced sexual assault or rape - probably about 95%. Actually it's very unusual for a woman not to have experienced it. IME this fact comes as a surprise to men but nearly all of us have been groped or grabbed or had their boundaries pushed further than she was comfortable. A lot of men are very uninterested in whether a woman is enthusiastic or not. We just don't talk about it - partly because it's so quotidian, partly because we don't want to be given the 3rd degree about what we were doing to provoke it.
I just wanted to point this out to the thread as it seems to be dominated by men:
Nearly every woman I know has experienced sexual assault or rape - probably about 95%. Actually it's very unusual for a woman not to have experienced it. IME this fact comes as a surprise to men but nearly all of us have been groped or grabbed or had their boundaries pushed further than she was comfortable. A lot of men are very uninterested in whether a woman is enthusiastic or not. We just don't talk about it - partly because it's so quotidian, partly because we don't want to be given the 3rd degree about what we were doing to provoke it.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
I'm not sure if this has been reported but seriously come on you guys.
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
This wasn't about her credibility, since she'd never claimed not to have consented.[/QUOTE]
True, but it would have been implied, if not openly stated, that if she had her full wits about her, she would never have had sex with a total stranger regardless of the circumstances: drunk or sober. So when former lover a) steps up and says they had sex after meeting in a club etc it would have been regarded as a slam dunk.
True, but it would have been implied, if not openly stated, that if she had her full wits about her, she would never have had sex with a total stranger regardless of the circumstances: drunk or sober. So when former lover a) steps up and says they had sex after meeting in a club etc it would have been regarded as a slam dunk.
Well it was interesting to see the way you dismissed Pac Man's first post, part of which went a fair way to removing the primary pillar of your position, as 'already dealt with' and 'agenda driven'. You swerved it well.
Anyway, yes. Let's leave it there.
I was posting the last one as you were this.
Athos
Well-Known Member
Again, you're just speculating.
And misrepresenting the evidence; neither of the two new witnesses said they had sex after meeting in a club - one had known her for years, and they other had been chatting with her online.
Plus, if the evidene was to be used that way, it ought ot have been inadmissible under s.41!
Similar threads
