Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

Athos said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Sexual Ammendment Act 2003 section 1 defines consent and reasonable belief in consent and iirc. Its you who hasnt got a clue.
 
Pac man said:
Sorry as i just explained im partially sighted and struggle with the keyboard.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, maybe we're both a bit clumsy. Still, you worded yourself badly, as if this was about hoardes of future drunk women falsely claiming rape, which it really is not.
 
equationgirl said:
Generally not the most controversial one on the forum, no.
Click to expand...

I joined specifically after finding this discussion when looking for a forum to read about this case. I spent a few days reading then plucked up the courage to join. I dont quite understand what the issue is with me joining in with a discussion in a current affairs topic as a new member..I have no master plan other than to discuss a very important topic
 
Pac man said:
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!!!
Click to expand...

did you know if you get overexcited on a boat once out of harbour or port... its legal to shot you in the face!!!

to ensure the safety of the crew

FACT!!!
 
Oh, ok, the Sexual Offences Act 2003, is it?

Well, s.1 of that act doesn't define consent or reasonable belief, either.

So, your argument was based upon an act of which you knew neither the name nor the content.

Tell me again how I don't have a clue. Clown.
 
Pac man said:
I joined specifically after finding this discussion when looking for a forum to read about this case. I spent a few days reading then plucked up the courage to join. I dont quite understand what the issue is with me joining in with a discussion in a current affairs topic as a new member..I have no master plan other than to discuss a very important topic
Click to expand...
That's how I found this website too, in my case it was a very local issue I just googled the keywords. You've done nothing wrong in suddenly appearing Pac man , it's just a funny little place you've found yourself in, very territorial, there are border patrols in special uniforms and everything.
 
Pac man said:
I joined specifically after finding this discussion when looking for a forum to read about this case. I spent a few days reading then plucked up the courage to join. I dont quite understand what the issue is with me joining in with a discussion in a current affairs topic as a new member..I have no master plan other than to discuss a very important topic
Click to expand...
Did you read at least the last few pages prior to posting, or the frequently asked questions section?

You may not be intending to, but you're posting some things that can be offensive such as 'anybody could go to the police and claim they were raped, if they didn't remember consenting to sex the night before'. Also, if you claim something as a FACT make sure you back it up with a credible source or reference.
 
Pac man said:
Soory again its me lol I always have reffered to it as the Sexual Amendment Act. it is indeed the Sexual Offences Act, it made changes hence why i have reffered to it before as the Sexual Amendments Act.
Click to expand...
Um, what? All new pieces of legislation generally make changes, else there'd be no point to them.
 
Wilf said:
This is idea that the victims evidence was moulded and shaped is pure speculation.
Click to expand...

It had to be entirely shaped by them. She was a blank canvass remember? Other than to trigger events by lodging a report of lost or stolen bag on the night in question, that was the sum total of her contribution to their case up to that point. Nonetheless on the basis that she remembered nothing the footballers were arrested on suspicion of? Handbag theft? Nope. Rape. And so the the dye was cast. So it looks like the police have arrived at conclusions ahead of the investigation. So her choices at this stage were to a) walk away entirely or b) cooperate with what is now inevitably their narrative. Much to her regret I'd imagine, she decided to go along with the police proposals.
 
Joe Reilly said:
It had to be entirely shaped by them. She was a blank canvass remember? Other than to trigger events by lodging a report of lost or stolen bag on the night in question, that was the sum total of her contribution to their case up to that point. Nonetheless on the basis that she remembered nothing the footballers were arrested on suspicion of? Handbag theft? Nope. Rape. And so the the dye was cast. So it looks like the police have arrived at conclusions ahead of the investigation. So her choices at this stage were to a) walk away entirely or b) cooperate with what is now inevitably their narrative. Much to her regret I'd imagine, she decided to go along with the police proposals.
Click to expand...

Shaped from what to what? Her account did not change from the intial one i.e. that she did not recall what had happened!
 
Joe Reilly said:
It had to be entirely shaped by them. She was a blank canvass remember? Other than to trigger events by lodging a report of lost or stolen bag on the night in question, that was the sum total of her contribution to their case up to that point. Nonetheless on the basis that she remembered nothing the footballers were arrested on suspicion of? Handbag theft? Nope. Rape. And so the the dye was cast. So it looks like the police have arrived at conclusions ahead of the investigation. So her choices at this stage were to a) walk away entirely or b) cooperate with what is now inevitably their narrative. Much to her regret I'd imagine, she decided to go along with the police proposals.
Click to expand...
Oh for fuck's sake. Stop imagining and speculating and pushing your agenda and narrative onto this thread.

And if you're going to join in, start answering all the inconvenient questions put to you over the past few days.
 
Joe Reilly said:
Did she not give evidence at the trial?
Click to expand...

How was what she said at trial different from what she had said all along? What was the effect of this 'shaping' in changing her account?

And, for a bonus point, whose accounts did indisputaby change over time, insofar as their later statements contained crucial information not in the earlier ones?
 
Joe Reilly said:
Apparently she left it in or outside a kebab shop
Click to expand...
That does seem kind of significant to the primary argument that she was not in a fit state to give meaningful consent then. Doesn't it.
Leaving all else aside (including how any of us feel about the law arbitrating who is and who isn't a competent adult able to consent or not) wandering off leaving your bag wallet phone etc means you're probably really not ok, in quite an obvious way?
 
equationgirl said:
Oh for fuck's sake. Stop imagining and speculating and pushing your agenda and narrative onto this thread.

And if you're going to join in, start answering all the inconvenient questions put to you over the past few days.
Click to expand...

None of them were inconvenient. Some were naive. And some were stupid. Most, if not all. were answered nonetheless.
 
Athos said:
How was what she said at trial different from what she had said all along? What was the effect of this 'shaping' in changing her account?

And, for a bonus point, whose accounts did indisputaby change over time, insofar as their later statements contained crucial information not in the earlier ones?
Click to expand...

It was about changing her account as such. It would have been about adding in: what happened prior to her not remembering.And all the rest of it, if the defence barrister was doing his job.
 
Joe Reilly said:
It was about changing her account as such. It would have been about adding in: what happened prior to her not remembering.And all the rest of it, if the defence barrister was doing his job.
Click to expand...

Oh, so not shaped as such. But added to, eh? So do you know what was added? What did she say in court that hadn't been said to the police?

Or are you speculating again?
 
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
355
elbows
elbows
Pickman's model
Members of Britain's richest family get prison sentences
Replies
12
Views
756
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