Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[Wilf]

Just watched the video. It's sickening, just an apology to his gf and a grovelling 'please let me play again'.

Fucking bizarre that a father would support his own daughter's bf when he'd been convicted of something like this tbh. Most dad's would be saying ' fuck him right off'.

The video won't make any difference to anything really, but it's extraordinarily badly judged. Feels like bad taste to be assessing how his PR campaign is going, when the more important point is that he's an unrepentant rapist, but it strikes entirely the wrong note to focus on getting his job back in his first interview.

 

[bmd]

i think a lot of that depends on who the victim or perpetrator are. there's a lot of judgementalism on lifestyle, plus a lot of race, class, and other dividers on whether it's seen as a henious attack on a innocent or whether the poor bloke is the real victim of a golddigger slut. ti's only seen as a serious crime if the perpetrator and victim fit certain stereotypes.

Stereotyping is prevalent across a lot of crimes but I think stereotyping of rape victims is massively damaging. From reporting, to the judicial process to living with it. Can you imagine a violent attack victim being treated so badly that they leave the country?

 

[equationgirl]

Stereotyping is prevalent across a lot of crimes but I think stereotyping of rape victims is massively damaging. From reporting, to the judicial process to living with it. Can you imagine a violent attack victim being treated so badly that they leave the country?

There are enormous problems with the way rape victims are treated, from reporting right through to prosecution and after. No other crime has such a low conviction rate where the victim is blamed for the crime. We need to get away from this viewpoint and this whole case has done nothing but reinforce stereotypical and damaging views of rape victims.

 

[free spirit]

I thoroughly disagree, to once again say the very least. with free spirit generally on this thread, but especially with his post on page 19 in reply to mine. But it's too late to respond to that properly right now.

Suffice to say for now that my response to his position is not based on morality. Will get back to this some other time.

I'll try one last time to explain my problem with this situation.

1 - We have case law that says clearly that drunken sex is ok, drunken consent is still consent.

2 - If someone was too drunk to actually give their consent, and they were obviously too drunk to give their consent then that would have been rape. Previously this meant that they hadn't actually consented as they were too drunk to speak or work out what was going on or similar.

3 - We now have a case where this has been extended to mean that drunken consent (or alleged drunken consent) is nullified if the person who allegedly gave that consent was in alcoholic blackout at the time and can't remember anything at all about what happened when they wake up the next morning.

The inference of this being that she must have been, and must have appeared to have been too drunk to give her consent at that time if she can't remember it.

Why this is a problem
The problem with this being that it can be nie on impossible to tell the difference between someone who is merely drunk, and someone who is in alcoholic blackout and won't remember a thing about what's happened in the morning.

The person who is in alcoholic blackout can appear to all intents and purposes just as lucid as the person who is merely drunk*, they may well be able to hold deep and meaningful conversations, walk, dance etc they're just incapable of actually laying down new memories of what is going on while they are in that state.

So the dividing line between point 1 and point 3 is one that can be pretty much impossible for someone to determine at the time, unless they specifically do something to test out the persons short term memory or similar, meaning a person could legitimately think they were just in a drunken consent situation, whereas actually, unbeknown to them, the other person was actually at point 3 and was incapable of remembering what had happened and could therefore be deemed to have been too drunk to legitimately consent, and therefore to have been raped.


So her story stacks up, the footballers story potentially stacks up as well, and the 2 aren't contradictory. The prosecutions version of events really doesn't, and seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of alcoholic blackouts, as the prosection should have needed to prove that the guy must have known at the time that she was incapacitated through alcohol in order for this to stick.


* this is particularly the case if the drinks involved contained a lot of caffeine, sugar etc such as vodka red bull, or vodka and cokes, as the caffeine and sugar ensures the person seems wide awake and lively, while the alcohol prevents the memory formation from happening. Same with coke, speed etc. Alcoholic blackout is usually brought on by a rapid rise in the blood alcohol levels in a short space of time, so several spirits in quick succession as was the case here, it's entirely different to the situation when getting gradually drunk over a few pints, just in case anyone wasn't aware of the difference.


That's me done with this for a while at least, as A I appear to be going round in circles with this, and B I'm off to Spain for a few days, and am fucked if I'm going to waste my time over there arguing the toss about this on Urban.

 

[Citizen66]

This, basically. Whether people agree with it or not. He has served his time and is allowed to seek work in whatever professions are legal for him to do so.

I hear people calling for him to be given a lifetime football ban and such but the law doesn't work that way.

Having said that there is so much emotion flying about around this case i don't think any professional clubs are going to go anywhere near him.

A footballer is a privileged position. It's high profile and players naturally become role models to kids. What's wrong with him getting a job on the bins?

 

[comrade spurski]

I'll try one last time to explain my problem with this situation.

1 - We have case law that says clearly that drunken sex is ok, drunken consent is still consent.

2 - If someone was too drunk to actually give their consent, and they were obviously too drunk to give their consent then that would have been rape. Previously this meant that they hadn't actually consented as they were too drunk to speak or work out what was going on or similar.

3 - We now have a case where this has been extended to mean that drunken consent (or alleged drunken consent) is nullified if the person who allegedly gave that consent was in alcoholic blackout at the time and can't remember anything at all about what happened when they wake up the next morning.

The inference of this being that she must have been, and must have appeared to have been too drunk to give her consent at that time if she can't remember it.

Why this is a problem
The problem with this being that it can be nie on impossible to tell the difference between someone who is merely drunk, and someone who is in alcoholic blackout and won't remember a thing about what's happened in the morning.

The person who is in alcoholic blackout can appear to all intents and purposes just as lucid as the person who is merely drunk*, they may well be able to hold deep and meaningful conversations, walk, dance etc they're just incapable of actually laying down new memories of what is going on while they are in that state.

So the dividing line between point 1 and point 3 is one that can be pretty much impossible for someone to determine at the time, unless they specifically do something to test out the persons short term memory or similar, meaning a person could legitimately think they were just in a drunken consent situation, whereas actually, unbeknown to them, the other person was actually at point 3 and was incapable of remembering what had happened and could therefore be deemed to have been too drunk to legitimately consent, and therefore to have been raped.


So her story stacks up, the footballers story potentially stacks up as well, and the 2 aren't contradictory. The prosecutions version of events really doesn't, and seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of alcoholic blackouts, as the prosection should have needed to prove that the guy must have known at the time that she was incapacitated through alcohol in order for this to stick.


* this is particularly the case if the drinks involved contained a lot of caffeine, sugar etc such as vodka red bull, or vodka and cokes, as the caffeine and sugar ensures the person seems wide awake and lively, while the alcohol prevents the memory formation from happening. Same with coke, speed etc. Alcoholic blackout is usually brought on by a rapid rise in the blood alcohol levels in a short space of time, so several spirits in quick succession as was the case here, it's entirely different to the situation when getting gradually drunk over a few pints, just in case anyone wasn't aware of the difference.


That's me done with this for a while at least, as A I appear to be going round in circles with this, and B I'm off to Spain for a few days, and am fucked if I'm going to waste my time over there arguing the toss about this on Urban.

The only people alleging consent was given were the bloke aquitted and the convicted rapist...so it says a lot about you that you continue to claim that consent was given...you can only come to this conclussion if you believe the men.

 

[1927]

The only people alleging consent was given were the bloke aquitted and the convicted rapist...so it says a lot about you that you continue to claim that consent was given...you can only come to this conclussion if you believe the men.

No one has given any evidence that consent was not given. Why shouldn't they be believed? They actually supplied the only evidence that sex took place!

 

[comrade spurski]

Regarding his right to work...there are thousands of jobs he can do...he is not interested in those jobs, he is interested in the wealth and fame of being a footballer and imo he should be denied that job.

 

[Citizen66]

No one has given any evidence that consent was not given. Why shouldn't they be believed? They actually supplied the only evidence that sex took place!

The level of inebriation of the woman was the evidence that consent couldn't have been given. It applies to those who have consumed too much and children under the age of 14 are deemed unable to give consent in the eyes of the law.

So if the woman couldn't even remember that sex took place that works against those accused, not in their favour.

 

[1927]

Regarding his right to work...there are thousands of jobs he can do...he is not interested in those jobs, he is interested in the wealth and fame of being a footballer and imo he should be denied that job.

For a forum that believes in human rights this is a very dangerous precedent to be promoting, where would you draw the line?

Can drug dealers get jobs, murderers, muggers?

 

[comrade spurski]

No one has given any evidence that consent was not given. Why shouldn't tis not tolerable in a rape case...it will give ey be believed? They actually supplied the only evidence that sex took place!

Cos you cant prove what was said without recording equipment. It becomes one persons word against another...and that is not acceptable in a rape case. It would make most rape victims in an impossible position. The evidence presented to the jury led them to believe she was not capable of given consent...due to how much she had drunk.

 

[Citizen66]

For a forum that believes in human rights this is a very dangerous precedent to be promoting, where would you draw the line?

Can drug dealers get jobs, murderers, muggers?

It's someone's human right to be a footballer? Get tae fuck.

 

[comrade spurski]

For a forum that believes in hfootballers this is a very dangerous precedent to be promoting, where would you draw the line?

Can drug dealers get jobs, murderers, muggers?

Did not say he could not get a job...said he did not have a right to be a footballer

 

[Part 2]

Not being a football fan as such was trying to think of the other fella who assaulted a woman in a bar....Marlon King.

If he's anything to go by, Evans will play football again no question about it.

 

[belboid]

No one has given any evidence that consent was not given. Why shouldn't they be believed? They actually supplied the only evidence that sex took place!

Why shouldn't they be believed? Because it was shown that Evans lied. Pretty fucking simple. But don't let that boring old fact other you, you keep making excuses for the rapist.

 

[Lo Siento.]

I'll try one last time to explain my problem with this situation.

1 - We have case law that says clearly that drunken sex is ok, drunken consent is still consent.

2 - If someone was too drunk to actually give their consent, and they were obviously too drunk to give their consent then that would have been rape. Previously this meant that they hadn't actually consented as they were too drunk to speak or work out what was going on or similar.

3 - We now have a case where this has been extended to mean that drunken consent (or alleged drunken consent) is nullified if the person who allegedly gave that consent was in alcoholic blackout at the time and can't remember anything at all about what happened when they wake up the next morning.

The inference of this being that she must have been, and must have appeared to have been too drunk to give her consent at that time if she can't remember it.

For the umpteenth time - the bit in bold is just pure fantasy. No one in court either argued or inferred that the blackout was proof that you the victim couldn't consent.

You've had this pointed out to you over and over again. At this point I'm left marvelling at why you're prepared to make shit up in order to defend a convicted rapist.

 

[Athos]

I'll try one last time to explain my problem with this situation.

1 - We have case law that says clearly that drunken sex is ok, drunken consent is still consent.

2 - If someone was too drunk to actually give their consent, and they were obviously too drunk to give their consent then that would have been rape. Previously this meant that they hadn't actually consented as they were too drunk to speak or work out what was going on or similar.

No it didn't; you've inaccurately characterised the law before this case. Previously it meant exactly as it does now: that if they lacked capacity (through voluntary intoxication, or any other reason), then there could be no consent.

3 - We now have a case where this has been extended to mean that drunken consent (or alleged drunken consent) is nullified if the person who allegedly gave that consent was in alcoholic blackout at the time and can't remember anything at all about what happened when they wake up the next morning.

The inference of this being that she must have been, and must have appeared to have been too drunk to give her consent at that time if she can't remember it.

Three points here: first, this isn't a case of drunken consent; there's a clear distinction between drunken consent and intoxication to the extent that the victim lacks the capacity to consent (made in this case and Bree) - the Evans case falls into the latter category.

Secondly, not only do we not know whether or not the jury believed that she had purported to consent (though you seem to take the rapist's word for it), but, in any event, they concluded beyond reasonable doubt that he had no reasonable belief that she had consented.

And, thirdly, this is not a case where consent is nullified by alcohloic blackout, at all. Rather, based upon all the evidence the jury heard, they decided beyond reasonable doubt that not only did his victim lack the capacity to consent, but also he had no reasonable belief that she had consented. You have no grounds to assert that the fact if her alcoholic blackout was the basis for their decision making.

Why this is a problem
The problem with this being that it can be nie on impossible to tell the difference between someone who is merely drunk, and someone who is in alcoholic blackout and won't remember a thing about what's happened in the morning.

The person who is in alcoholic blackout can appear to all intents and purposes just as lucid as the person who is merely drunk*, they may well be able to hold deep and meaningful conversations, walk, dance etc they're just incapable of actually laying down new memories of what is going on while they are in that state.

So the dividing line between point 1 and point 3 is one that can be pretty much impossible for someone to determine at the time, unless they specifically do something to test out the persons short term memory or similar, meaning a person could legitimately think they were just in a drunken consent situation, whereas actually, unbeknown to them, the other person was actually at point 3 and was incapable of remembering what had happened and could therefore be deemed to have been too drunk to legitimately consent, and therefore to have been raped.

But that's not the issue; you've completely missed the point. You're trying to muddy the waters with the issue of memory, but, from a legal perspective, that's not what this turns on (it's only significance is evidential).

Before you sleep with someone, you don't need to establish whether or not they'll remember it, but simply that they consent i.e. that they are not so drunk that it's obvious to you that they don't consent (as the jury found happened in this case).

Let's be very clear about this, the jury found that Evans didn't believe he was in a drunken consent situation, but that he had no reasonable belief that his victim had consented.

So her story stacks up, the footballers story potentially stacks up as well, and the 2 aren't contradictory.

Despite the fact that you believe him, the jury though that his story didn't stack up; specifically, they didn't believe that he had a reasonable belief that she'd consented.

The prosecutions version of events really doesn't, and seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of alcoholic blackouts, as the prosection should have needed to prove that the guy must have known at the time that she was incapacitated through alcohol in order for this to stick.

Christ! That's effectively what they were required to (and did) prove. The prosecution convinced the jury that Evans had no reasonable belief that she had consented, and clearly the the only basis upon which he could have known that she didn't consent in this case is that it must have been obvious to him that she lacked capacity as a result of intoxication.

That's me done with this for a while at least, as A I appear to be going round in circles with this, and B I'm off to Spain for a few days, and am fucked if I'm going to waste my time over there arguing the toss about this on Urban.

You are only going around in circles because you've painted yourself into a corner, and are so determined to defend the indefensible that you keep repeating demonstrably false arguments (either willfully, or as a result of ignorance).

 

[likesfish]

If it was so fucking consentul why did both the blokes get the fuck out of dodge?
Not exactly the normal actions after a " night of mutal pleasure"

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Not being a football fan as such was trying to think of the other fella who assaulted a woman in a bar....Marlon King.

If he's anything to go by, Evans will play football again no question about it.

Not if any potential club's sponsors are hit with a twitter shitstorm he won't

 

[Citizen66]

And when McDonald was getting the fuck out of dodge, why did he tell the receptionist to keep his eye on her because 'she is ill'?

Presumably he didn't mean she had a bit of a cold coming on.

 

[sim667]

Not being a football fan as such was trying to think of the other fella who assaulted a woman in a bar....Marlon King.

If he's anything to go by, Evans will play football again no question about it.

Im not a football fan either, but my interpretation of football is as a sport it will still widely accept violence/sexual assaults on women and despites its best attempts there's still a more racism than other sports...... I don't know if its just certain clubs that applies to though.... its all men kicking a pigs bladder round a field to me

 

[bmd]

For a forum that believes in human rights this is a very dangerous precedent to be promoting, where would you draw the line?

Can drug dealers get jobs, murderers, muggers?

Yes, yes they can. Just not one where they are a high profile role model for unrepentant rapists.

 

[Athos]

Im not a football fan either, but my interpretation of football is as a sport it will still widely accept violence/sexual assaults on women and despites its best attempts there's still a more racism than other sports...... I don't know if its just certain clubs that applies to though.... its all men kicking a pigs bladder round a field to me

Some fans of some football clubs display more overt racism than most fans at other sporting events. But I'm not sure it follows that racism is more widely accepted in football. I wonder if there might be other factors which prevent racism being openly displayed at other sporting events. For instance, the class difference between football and rugby crowds, and the respective differences in what they would stand to lose by openly displaying racism.

 

[Citizen66]

Sexism is rugby's niche.

 

[sim667]

Sexism is rugby's niche.

I think there's a difference between league and union wrt to overt sexism though.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So apparent did Judy whatshernames daughter because of the comments Judy made. Which is just, well I can't think of a word for it.

Chloe Madeley.

 

[killer b]

hey 1927 - now you're back on the thread, are you going to answer those questions from earlier?

here's a reminder of what you said, and what people asked.

There is something about this case that doesn't ring true with me, not least the fact that it is alleged that the victim had previously made rape allegations against 2 other prominent sportsman , one a cricketer and one a rugby league player!

and a credible source for this attack on Evans victim?

You fucking what?! Alleged by who?

Do you know how hard it is to get a rape conviction? Particularly when your rapist is famous. You disgust me, you rape apologist freak.

Is there any evidence of these alleged rape allegations?

 

[savoloysam]

A footballer is a privileged position. It's high profile and players naturally become role models to kids. What's wrong with him getting a job on the bins?

If he wants too it's up to him, his choice. You could also join him. You could even apply to drive the lorry if you want.

 

[Cribynkle]

I think Sheffield United have already stated they would not offer him another contract. As i said I would be majorly surprised if any club in this country does.

Plymouth probably would, he might even eventually get the captain's gig from McCormick

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Sexism is rugby's niche.

By far the worst sexism I've seen at a sports ground, and I've been to quite a few, was at Lords cricket ground. Bunches of pissed up posh blokes making grunting noises at every woman passing.

Never seen anything like that at the football, or even at The Oval.