Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[bemused]

I think that some will see it that way[..]

Some or thousands, surely you don't think someone who hadn't thought about raping people would be inspired to do so?

I don't think normal people look at this stuff and think 'I'll have some of that' I believe the overwhelming majority looking at it with disgust and empathy in equal measure.

 

[bimble]

Anyway, yes. Let's leave it there.

Good plan.

 

[Athos]

Some or thousands, surely you don't think someone who hadn't thought about raping people would be inspired to do so?

I don't think normal people look at this stuff and think 'I'll have some of that' I believe the overwhelming majority looking at it with disgust and empathy in equal measure.

Sadly I don't share your faith; there's a lot of misogyny about (conscious and unconscious). Maybe lots won't be directly inspired to rape, but it drip-feeds into a rape culture, nonetheless.

 

[trashpony]

Fucking shut up all of you fucking men! Christ almighty

 

[Treacle Toes]

This wasn't about her credibility, since she'd never claimed not to have consented.

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.

Which total strangers are you talking about? the one she had known since childhood of someone she had been speaking to online?

'Slam dunk'...shame you are incapable of applying the same hard line with CE and M...both of which have shown themselves to be utter scumbags in the way they behaved.

 

[Joe Reilly]

Plus, if the evidene was to be used that way, it ought ot have been inadmissible under s.41!

is 'ought to have been' not speculation as well?

 

[Treacle Toes]

Some or thousands, surely you don't think someone who hadn't thought about raping people would be inspired to do so?

I don't think normal people look at this stuff and think 'I'll have some of that' I believe the overwhelming majority looking at it with disgust and empathy in equal measure.

As an aside but relevant I think you would do well to read some articles and reports about attitudes towards sexual abuse and rape amongst young people and the VALID concerns people have about how widespread abuse has become. There has been a noticable cultural shift and it's fucking terrifying.

 

[Athos]

is 'ought to have been' not speculation as well?

No, that's what the law says. Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, s,41(4):

For the purposes of subsection (3) no evidence or question shall be regarded as relating to a relevant issue in the case if it appears to the court to be reasonable to assume that the purpose (or main purpose) for which it would be adduced or asked is to establish or elicit material for impugning the credibility of the complainant as a witness.

 

[equationgirl]

bemused (in fact anybody who is interested) have a look at the discussion on the unilad thread from a couple of years back to see some rape culture attitudes.

 

[Spymaster]

.

 

[Pac man]

Except that what constitutes "out of character" during or soon after a traumatic event, is incredibly hard to determine. What is common to trauma is peri-and post-traumatic dissociation or similar behaviour-warping psychological protections.

As for what you believe, your beliefs are irrelevant. In your own words they have "no baring [sic] on the facts".

Sorry if i mislead you there, I believe it was one of the witnesses that said her behaviour was out of character after he slept with her, his reason for coming forward was due to his belief that she acted strangely for somebody who had just recently been raped. They are the facts...

 

[Wilf]

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.

This is idea that the victims evidence was moulded and shaped is pure speculation. The possibility/probability that the 'new witnesses' had their contributions moulded into a narrative is much more significant - things remembered that weren't remembered before; details emerging after Evans own version was made public; emails being passed via Evans friends, the £50,000. Comparing the 2 processes, its her evidence I have most confidence in.

 

[Athos]

Sorry if i mislead you there, I believe it was one of the witnesses that said her behaviour was out of character after he slept with her, his reason for coming forward was due to his belief that she acted strangely for somebody who had just recently been raped. They are the facts...

Again, that's not "the facts", but one explanation for why he came forward. Why do you take everything that supports Evans at face value?

And I wonder what qualifies him as an expert in what's strange behaviour for someone who has been raped.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Sorry if i mislead you there, I believe it was one of the witnesses that said her behaviour was out of character after he slept with her, his reason for coming forward was due to his belief that she acted strangely for somebody who had just recently been raped. They are the facts...

His opinion is not a fact. Nor is his mother's who is reportedly the person who told him that CE was being pursued for rape.

His conclusion was that she was a gold digger.

 

[bimble]

its her evidence I have most confidence in.

What evidence? X is a woman who has had no chance to speak at all, her voice is totally absent far as I can see. She is silent. What has she said that you know of and have confidence in? Apart from that she cant remember and that she lost her bag.

 

[Pac man]

I totally agree with you that this high profile failed case brought by the state has been a disaster in every way for x and for women in general.

His being found guilty and then being cleared are both pretty much incidental to the damage done.

This was one of the most unsafe convictions in recent history, what a dangerous precedent it has set, now anybody who gets pissed and cant remeber what happened the next morning, can claim they were raped, when infact they may well have had fully consensual sex and simply cant remember. Its highly unlikely the vast majority of rape cases will ever need to address the issue of previous sexual history, unless similar fact evidence that is relevant is an issue, its not common place and so nothing about s41 EJCEA 1999 or the SAA 2003 have changed.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

 

[bimble]

This was one of the most unsafe convictions in recent history, what a dangerous precedent it has set, now anybody who gets pissed and cant remeber what happened the next morning, can claim they were raped, when infact they may well have had fully consensual sex and simply cant remember. Its highly unlikely the vast majority of rape cases will ever need to address the issue of previous sexual history, unless similar fact evidence that is relevant is an issue, its not common place and so nothing about s41 EJCEA 1999 or the SAA 2003 have changed.

Thing is that she never claimed that she was raped.
Your post is framed as if she did claim it, as if she was the actor in all of this. That is totally wrong and puts you in a very odd position.

I think I agree with you on the legal stuff and the seriously damaging implications of the precedent that was set by the original conviction.

But your wording above is really thoughtless. She never claimed that she was raped. The fault lies with the police / CPS not with the woman.

 

[Wilf]

What evidence? X is a woman who has had no chance to speak at all, her voice is totally absent far as I can see. She is silent. What has she said that you know of and have confidence in? Apart from that she cant remember and that she lost her bag.

Exactly that (her evidence wasn't quite as limited as you say, but yes, her key contribution was she couldn't remember the encounter). But Joe has other ideas, that she was coached and conditioned and that she was pushed into telling a version of her own sex life invented by the prosecution. As you seem to be saying, that wasn't the case:

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.

 

[Athos]

This was one of the most unsafe convictions in recent history, what a dangerous precedent it has set, now anybody who gets pissed and cant remeber what happened the next morning, can claim they were raped, when infact they may well have had fully consensual sex and simply cant remember. Its highly unlikely the vast majority of rape cases will ever need to address the issue of previous sexual history, unless similar fact evidence that is relevant is an issue, its not common place and so nothing about s41 EJCEA 1999 or the SAA 2003 have changed.

Quite apart from the fact that's not how precedent works, you're suggesting that a case in which the accused was acquitted and in which a woman didnt complain of rape is precedent for a woman being able to (presumably sucesfully) claim to have been raped. Bonkers.

And what the fuck are the "EJCEA 1999" and the "SAA 2003"?

 

[Pac man]

Again, that's not "the facts", but one explanation for why he came forward. Why do you take everything that supports Evans at face value?

And I wonder what qualifies him as an expert in what's strange behaviour for someone who has been raped.

The fact is a witness came forward and his explanation was his belief that her behaviour was out of character. This is not me supporting anything but its more plausable than some far fetched conspiracy to pervert the course of justice..FACT!!!

 

[Athos]

The fact is a witness came forward and his explanation was his belief that her behaviour was out of character. This is not me supporting anything but its more plausable than some far fetched conspiracy to pervert the course of justice..FACT!!!

Yes, that is his explanation of why he came forward. Previously, you seemed to suggest it was "the facts" around him coming forward. You do appreciate the difference between what someone claims and what is a fact, I presume?

 

[Pac man]

Quite apart from the fact that's not how precedent works, you're suggesting that a case in which the accused was acquitted and in which a woman didnt complain of rape is precedent for a woman being able to (presumably sucesfully) claim to have been raped. Bonkers.

And what the fuck are the "YJCEA 1999" and the "SAA 2003"?

The only reason the case was retried was due to fresh evidence, without that fresh evidence "the similar fact evidence" the conviction would stand..and consequently anybody in the future claming they were drunk and couldnt remeber consenting to sex the night before can go to the police and claim they were raped. Thast is a dangerous precedent..A precedent is simply jude made law, where they fill in the blanks that the legaslature couldnt possibly forsee when they draft legistlation, precedents, common law as its otherwise known.

The YJCEA 1999 is the Yoith Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, part of wihch is s41, you know that what people have been been discussing for 130 pages. The SAA 2003 is The Sexual Amendment Act..that thing what explains what consent and reasonable belief in consent are, amongst other things.

EDA soory i have failing eye sight, no sight in one eye whatsoever anymore. I menat YJCEA not EJCEA.

 

[bimble]

The only reason the case was retried was due to fresh evidence, without that fresh evidence "the similar fact evidence" the conviction would stand..and consequently anybody in the future claming they were drunk and couldnt remeber consenting to sex the night before can go to the police and claim they were raped. Thast is a dangerous precedent..A precedent is simply jude made law, where they fill in the blanks that the legaslature couldnt possibly forsee when they draft legistlation, precedents, common law as its otherwise known.

The EJCEA 1999 is the Yoith Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, part of wihch is s41, you know that what people have been been discussing for 130 pages. The SAA 2003 is The Sexual Amendment Act..that thing what explains what consent and reasonable belief in consent are, amongst other things.

Are you drunk or have you just got fat fingers?
What you're saying is important but the way you're saying it is shit.

If the conviction had stood, the precedent would perhaps be set that when a woman can't remember having sex with a man then she is by default probably a victim of serious crime.

Everyone will have their own opinion on that as a new way of carrying out justice. Some will think it a good idea, to protect vulnerable women from opportunist men.
Me personally I don't like it. But you are shooting yourself in the foot repeatedly by your choice of woman-blaming language.

 

[Sue]

So, anyone else find it a bit strange that Pac man signs up as a new member and immediately dives straight into this thread?

 

[Pac man]

Thing is that she never claimed that she was raped.
Your post is framed as if she did claim it, as if she was the actor in all of this. That is totally wrong and puts you in a very odd position.

I think I agree with you on the legal stuff and the seriously damaging implications of the precedent that was set by the original conviction.

But your wording above is really thoughtless. She never claimed that she was raped. The fault lies with the police / CPS not with the woman.

You are right X never claimed she was raped, but neverthless it would be open to anybody to claim they were simply because they couldnt remember consenting the next morning due to alcholol intoxication. I dont nean to come across as thoughtless though, sorry if you think that, im really the opposite

 

[Pac man]

Are you drunk or have you just got fat fingers?
What you're saying is important but the way you're saying it is shit.

Sorry as i just explained im partially sighted and struggle with the keyboard.

 

[Treacle Toes]

They are here to discuss the FACTS apparently. Not all of them though. Just the ones they insist are facts.

 

[Athos]

The only reason the case was retried was due to fresh evidence, without that fresh evidence "the similar fact evidence" the conviction would stand..and consequently anybody in the future claming they were drunk and couldnt remeber consenting to sex the night before can go to the police and claim they were raped. Thast is a dangerous precedent..A precedent is simply jude made law, where they fill in the blanks that the legaslature couldnt possibly forsee when they draft legistlation, precedents, common law as its otherwise known.

The YJCEA 1999 is the Yoith Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, part of wihch is s41, you know that what people have been been discussing for 130 pages. The SAA 2003 is The Sexual Amendment Act..that thing what explains what consent and reasonable belief in consent are, amongst other things.

EDA soory i have failing eye sight, no sight in one eye whatsoever anymore. I menat YJCEA not EJCEA.

Anyone could go to the police before or after the first (and, indeed, second) trial, and claim to have been raped. There was nothing in the original trial that amounted to precedent; it was an application of long established principles around the effect of voluntary intoxication on the capacity for consent.

Ok, lets put the EJCEA down to your eyesight. But the Sexual Amendment Act? You really don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Pac man]

So, anyone else find it a bit strange that Pac man signs up as a new member and immediately dives straight into this thread?

Why is it strange, didnt all new members join in a first thread..???