Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[Geri]

That video is totally irrelevant. How the hell can you tell how drunk someone was from a few minutes of CCTV?

 

[bmd]

here's the thing. She doesn't know if she was raped or consented as she can't remember it. She didn't say she;d been raped in court, or to the police, she said she couldn't remember.

The police told her she'd been raped because she couldn't remember what had happened and therefore must have been too pissed to give her consent under the 2003 legislation, and the police charged the footballers on that basis.

She doesn't know if she consented because she can't remember. But she was distressed enough by the situation to go through a rape allegation, right through to prosecution.

The law is there to protect vulnerable people. In this case it was up to a jury to decide whether she consented because she couldn't remember whether she had or not.

Lastly, there were two other people in that room who could have decided whether she was capable of consent. They made the wrong choice. I hope this sends a clear message to all parties about consenting sex. To women who feel they have been raped, I am glad they feel more empowered. To men who feel this kind of behaviour is ok, I hope you're looking over your shoulder.

You keep mentioning that you've done this btw.

 

[Athos]

i'll take your word for that. i really don't think that i want to try to stomach delving into the kind of places where it's ok to 'name and shame' rape victims and make up shit about them to look for where that shit came from

Sadly you really don't need to delve. A very obvious google search will reveal her name, then a number of the hits take you to people spreading this kind of shit. No wonder she left the coutry.

And, in any event, even if she had made previous allegations, doesn't mean that she wasn't raped this time (or, indeed, on the other occasions).

 

[bmd]

Sadly you really don't need to delve. A very obvious google search will reveal her name, then a number of the hits take you to people spreading this kind of shit. No wonder she left the coutry.

And, in any event, even if she had made previous allegations, doesn't mean that she wasn't raped this time (or, indeed, on the other occasions).

All of that shite about spurious rape allegations makes me so fucking angry. Yes, there are a small percentage of women making false allegations, just like with every other crime on the planet.

 

[Athos]

All of that shite about spurious rape allegations makes me so fucking angry. Yes, there are a small percentage of women making false allegations, just like with every other crime on the planet.

Indeed. I'd be willing to bet that the ratio of innocent men convicted to guilty men acquitted must be in the 1000s.

 

[Athos]

I've just checked the legislation itself, and the basis for this prosecution isn't even outlined in the legislation itself, it seems to be based on case law based on judgement of what constitutes 'having the capacity to make that choice'

The original legislation specifies that it would be rape if the person were asleep, unconscious, had been given drugs / alcohol without their consent that incapacitated them etc but nothing at all about the person having voluntarily got themselves drunk and therefore being incapable of giving their consent.

So despite the legislation clearly defining 6 situations in which the person wouldn't be deemed as being capable of giving their consent, the courts seem to have come up with their own additional reason that wasn't in the original legislation based on their judgemet of what constitutes 'having the capacity to make that choice'.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/pdfs/ukpga_20030042_en.pdf
which is presumably why lots of people seem to have assumed she must have been passed out, as that would have been the situation within the original legislation in which this would have classed as rape, not being a bit pissed but essentially with it.

As far as I can tell, the judge in this case based his guidance to the jury on the CPS guidance, which itself references the case R v Bree 2007, which went to the court of appeal, where the appeal court judges actually declined to define specifically what should constitute someone being too drunk to consent, instead giving broad guidance similar to that given by the judge in this case, and the CPS. The odd thing being that in that case the person involved was acquitted.

So I think I may well be right that this case here actually is the first case to set the precedent with a conviction based on that appeal court judgement, or one of the first.



So if you lot would actually call off the dogs for a minute you might actually consider that this isn't exactly a standard cut and dried rape case, it's either the first of its kind to be found guilty on this basis, or one of the first, and it's based on appeal court judgements of what the word 'capacity' should mean rather than anything that was actually debated and agreed in parliament on the subject.

Surely if parliament had intended for this to be the situation then they would have added in a 7th paragraph to section 75 (2) which specified that a person who was under the incapacitated through drink or drugs they'd taken themselves voluntarily would also be considered to be incapable of consenting.

Instead parliament left it as being someone who was actually passed out, or had been spiked, but a few appeal court judges determined that this wasn't sufficient and added in an extra classification themselves.

You don't have a clue about how the law works, and this post is evidence that a (very) little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

There's only one thing worse than a barrack-room lawyer. A rape-apologist cunt.

 

[bmd]

Indeed. I'd be willing to bet that the ratio of innocent men convicted to guilty men acquitted must be in the 1000s.

Absolutely. It doesn't make it right but what gets me is that we never hear the end of it if a previously guilty man is proved innocent beyond all doubt, unlike in most other crimes. It is then held up as an example of how scheming and conniving women are in rape cases.

I never knew that about the woman in this case leaving the country. How utterly depressing.

 

[comrade spurski]

so, to be clear, you support a law that allows for someone to be charged and potentially convicted as a rapist despite both parties consenting to sex at the time, just because the police, CPS and possibly jury decide that the woman was too drunk to consent when it later turns out that she can't actually remember what happened?

And you support this even when the woman involved can be shown to have been at least able to walk in heels in and out of a hotel lobby under her own steam, so clearly not obviously falling over drunk?

Me, I think this is properly dodgy law making that a lot of people could potentially fall foul of after a drunken one night stand that's later regretted.

So, just to be clear, you claim this law allows men to be convicted of rape when a woman consents to sex? Then you are an idiot. Rape can only occur when consent has not and can not be given. If a woman over the age of 16 says she has consented then there will not be a rape case...that DID NOT happen in this case...the woman DID NOT say she consented...therefore your premise is complete and utter bollocks. Or do you need me to draw in in crayons before you understand this simple premise.

You have prattled on about about her not remembering if she consented but now talk of all parties consenting.

You decide she is not too drunk to have consented from watching cctv...and now have developed a fear that many people will fall foul after a drunken one night stand.

Well guess what, the police, courts and prosecution are shit at dealing with rape cases, allowing women to be reabused in court and treating them like liars so the idea that the courts and police police are now out fitting up innocent men is bollocks.

You have no fucking idea what consent was or was not given...you werent there and you werent on the jury. Yet you have stated that he "seemed to be in no doubt that consent had been given" and you can only get this from taking the view of the convicted rapist ... does it not cross your mind that the convicted rapist is capable of lying too?

You have no idea how drunk she was or how the drink affected her. Yet on and on you go about how she werent that drunk, based on she could walk 10 minutes before.
If you like detective puzzles go buy a box set of Columbo dvds and guess away but stop with the paronoid, misogynistic, poor man shit.
You claim you have researched this case and state that you havent read the original trial transcript but you have read the appeal evidence (which will be based around the convicted rapists lies about his innocence) and his website (set up by by supporters and fans of this convicted rapist).
You dont question why they are supporting a convicted rapist, you do however question how she was a victim...and now you worry that people ... by which you mean men...are at risk of falling foul of a one night stand.
Your posts imply unpleasant things about the woman who was raped but nothing about the woman who has continued to be the partner of this convicted rapist. It says nothing about the animals who outed this woman on the internet, who abused her and threatened her online to such a degree that she has had to take up a new identity and leave her friends and family behind.
Your views, logic and arguments are odious.

 

[toggle]

Sadly you really don't need to delve. A very obvious google search will reveal her name, then a number of the hits take you to people spreading this kind of shit. No wonder she left the coutry.

And, in any event, even if she had made previous allegations, doesn't mean that she wasn't raped this time (or, indeed, on the other occasions).

yeah, sometimes this shit takes some active effort to avoid

She doesn't know if she consented because she can't remember. But she was distressed enough by the situation to go through a rape allegation, right through to prosecution.

The law is there to protect vulnerable people. In this case it was up to a jury to decide whether she consented because she couldn't remember whether she had or not.

Lastly, there were two other people in that room who could have decided whether she was capable of consent. They made the wrong choice. I hope this sends a clear message to all parties about consenting sex. To women who feel they have been raped, I am glad they feel more empowered. To men who feel this kind of behaviour is ok, I hope you're looking over your shoulder.

You keep mentioning that you've done this btw.

it's also the constant promotion of the idea that women regularly make rape complaints when they changed their mind after the act.
.

 

[Pickman's model]

Free spirit eh? Well I never

it's IRONICK

 

[Pickman's model]

it's also the constant promotion of the idea that women regularly make rape complaints when they changed their mind after the act.
.

and as you know, when this happens - and it's a rare thing - it ends up in the newspapers and the women involved face charges. free spirit's way off course on this one, but he seems to be way off course on a number of other things too.

 

[bmd]

yeah, sometimes this shit takes some active effort to avoid
it's also the constant promotion of the idea that women regularly make rape complaints when they changed their mind after the act.

In fact I would go so far as to say that's the crux of the issue here.

 

[toggle]

You have no fucking idea what consent was or was not given...you werent there and you werent on the jury. Yet you have stated that he "seemed to be in no doubt that consent had been given" and you can only get this from taking the view of the convicted rapist ... does it not cross your mind that the convicted rapist is capable of lying too?

there seem to be a lot of people that assume that men are more trustworthy than women. even if they don't start ascribing some deeply unpleasent stereotypes to explain why women might havemade a rape complaint, then there is a far more insidions description that she must have been mistaken. because women can't be trusted to make an assessment of their own experiences

 

[toggle]

and as you know, when this happens - and it's a rare thing - it ends up in the newspapers and the women involved face charges. free spirit's way off course on this one, but he seems to be way off course on a number of other things too.

absolutely.

false complaints of rape are made at about the same rates as any other crime. although there are surveys that show larger numbers, those are based on some very suspect methodology.

the most detailed report i've seen is that CPS report that ive posted up links to on numerous occasions that shows provably false allegations are exceedingly low. and in a lot of those cases, the complaint was made by someone other than the victim

 

[Pickman's model]

there seem to be a lot of people that assume that men are more trustworthy than women. even if they don't start ascribing some deeply unpleasent stereotypes to explain why women might havemade a rape complaint, then there is a far more insidions description that she must have been mistaken. because women can't be trusted to make an assessment of their own experiences

given the majority of politicians at all levels are men, the majority of bankers and senior executives are men and the majority of journalists are men, i think people need to re-examine this bizarre and ill-founded belief that men are more trustworthy than women. the evidence, if evidence it is, points in quite another direction.

 

[comrade spurski]

People assune that if a man is not prosecuted or convicted after being accused of rape then it must be a false allegation.
Some people are very selective in their understanding

 

[toggle]

given the majority of politicians at all levels are men, the majority of bankers and senior executives are men and the majority of journalists are men, i think people need to re-examine this bizarre and ill-founded belief that men are more trustworthy than women. the evidence, if evidence it is, points in quite another direction.

i think that's a rfunction of access to power. I doubt if our society had developed as a matriarchy, then women would have turned out any better.

 

[Pickman's model]

i think that's a rfunction of access to power. I doubt if our society had developed as a matriarchy, then women would have turned out any better.

seems to me it means that there's an awful lot of men out there who are prepared to lie on a daily basis about even the most mundane and banal things, indeed to make lying the foundation of their income.

 

[toggle]

seems to me it means that there's an awful lot of men out there who are prepared to lie on a daily basis about even the most mundane and banal things, indeed to make lying the foundation of their income.

but we achieve nothing by replacing one stereotype with another, other than feeding into the MRA victim complex

 

[Cid]

I've just checked the legislation itself, and the basis for this prosecution isn't even outlined in the legislation itself, it seems to be based on case law based on judgement of what constitutes 'having the capacity to make that choice'

The original legislation specifies that it would be rape if the person were asleep, unconscious, had been given drugs / alcohol without their consent that incapacitated them etc but nothing at all about the person having voluntarily got themselves drunk and therefore being incapable of giving their consent.

So despite the legislation clearly defining 6 situations in which the person wouldn't be deemed as being capable of giving their consent, the courts seem to have come up with their own additional reason that wasn't in the original legislation based on their judgemet of what constitutes 'having the capacity to make that choice'.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/pdfs/ukpga_20030042_en.pdf
which is presumably why lots of people seem to have assumed she must have been passed out, as that would have been the situation within the original legislation in which this would have classed as rape, not being a bit pissed but essentially with it.

As far as I can tell, the judge in this case based his guidance to the jury on the CPS guidance, which itself references the case R v Bree 2007, which went to the court of appeal, where the appeal court judges actually declined to define specifically what should constitute someone being too drunk to consent, instead giving broad guidance similar to that given by the judge in this case, and the CPS. The odd thing being that in that case the person involved was acquitted.

So I think I may well be right that this case here actually is the first case to set the precedent with a conviction based on that appeal court judgement, or one of the first.



So if you lot would actually call off the dogs for a minute you might actually consider that this isn't exactly a standard cut and dried rape case, it's either the first of its kind to be found guilty on this basis, or one of the first, and it's based on appeal court judgements of what the word 'capacity' should mean rather than anything that was actually debated and agreed in parliament on the subject.

Surely if parliament had intended for this to be the situation then they would have added in a 7th paragraph to section 75 (2) which specified that a person who was under the incapacitated through drink or drugs they'd taken themselves voluntarily would also be considered to be incapable of consenting.

Instead parliament left it as being someone who was actually passed out, or had been spiked, but a few appeal court judges determined that this wasn't sufficient and added in an extra classification themselves.

You've misunderstood the legislation. What you're looking at is an evidential presumption. I.e if evidence that any of the above circumstances occurred is adduced, then there is a rebuttable presumption that the offence was committed. They don't work the other way, if none of the circumstances apply there just isn't a presumption.

 

[Athos]

I've just checked the legislation itself, and the basis for this prosecution isn't even outlined in the legislation itself, it seems to be based on case law based on judgement of what constitutes 'having the capacity to make that choice'

The legislation talks about consent, and acknowledges that it, in turn, turns on the question of capacity. Capacity is a well established jurisprudential concept. The legislature knew this when framing the act.

The original legislation specifies that it would be rape if the person were asleep, unconscious, had been given drugs / alcohol without their consent that incapacitated them etc but nothing at all about the person having voluntarily got themselves drunk and therefore being incapable of giving their consent.

You've completely misunderstood the effect of s.75. What it does is effectively reverse the burden of proof, by raising a rebuttable presumption of the absence of consent in a very narrowly drawn set of circumstances, which all, in and of themselves, indicate culpability on the part of the accused i.e. the victim was drugged or imprisoned.

So despite the legislation clearly defining 6 situations in which the person wouldn't be deemed as being capable of giving their consent, the courts seem to have come up with their own additional reason that wasn't in the original legislation based on their judgemet of what constitutes 'having the capacity to make that choice'.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/pdfs/ukpga_20030042_en.pdf
which is presumably why lots of people seem to have assumed she must have been passed out, as that would have been the situation within the original legislation in which this would have classed as rape, not being a bit pissed but essentially with it.

No. The legislation specifically mentions that consent turns on capacity, and it is long settled that intoxication is relevant to capacity. This is not a case of the courts going beyond what parliament intended at all.

As far as I can tell, the judge in this case based his guidance to the jury on the CPS guidance, which itself references the case R v Bree 2007, which went to the court of appeal, where the appeal court judges actually declined to define specifically what should constitute someone being too drunk to consent, instead giving broad guidance similar to that given by the judge in this case, and the CPS. The odd thing being that in that case the person involved was acquitted.

Judges don't give guidance based on CPS guidance; they do so based on the law (legislation and case law). Often courts decline to define terms which have an ordinary meaning, for fear that any attempt at doing so will fail to reflect the necessary nuance, preferring to leave that to a jury. Nothing odd about that, or about the acquittal in Bree.

So I think I may well be right that this case here actually is the first case to set the precedent with a conviction based on that appeal court judgement, or one of the first.

Why do you claim that? And what of it?

So if you lot would actually call off the dogs for a minute you might actually consider that this isn't exactly a standard cut and dried rape case, it's either the first of its kind to be found guilty on this basis, or one of the first, and it's based on appeal court judgements of what the word 'capacity' should mean rather than anything that was actually debated and agreed in parliament on the subject.

There's no such thing as a standard rape case. But this is cut and dried insofar as the jury decided beyond reasonable doubt that she had not consented and that he did not reasonably believe that she had. The jury that heard all of the evidence, not merely selected extracts presented on the rapist's supporters' website.

Surely if parliament had intended for this to be the situation then they would have added in a 7th paragraph to section 75 (2) which specified that a person who was under the incapacitated through drink or drugs they'd taken themselves voluntarily would also be considered to be incapable of consenting.

Instead parliament left it as being someone who was actually passed out, or had been spiked, but a few appeal court judges determined that this wasn't sufficient and added in an extra classification themselves.

No. I've addressed this, above.

 

[Pickman's model]

but we achieve nothing by replacing one stereotype with another, other than feeding into the MRA victim complex

i'm not saying one gender more honest than another. i am saying that it is a mistake to assume one gender is more honest than another.

 

[Athos]

You've misunderstood the legislation. What you're looking at is an evidential presumption. I.e if evidence that any of the above circumstances occurred is adduced, then there is a rebuttable presumption that the offence was committed. They don't work the other way, if none of the circumstances apply there just isn't a presumption.

You beat me to it!

 

[J Ed]

Disgusting http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...g-super-ched-evans-at-todays-game--gy7WMY3HUg

 

[ViolentPanda]

I have real problems with the law that's being used in this case, and always have done since it was framed a decade or so ago.

Under UK law, anyone who gets blind drunk voluntarily is still held to be legally responsible for any actions they take while blind drunk, from driving a car to getting involved in a drunken fight to vandalism to murder etc. being blind drunk is not a defence against any charges.

What "actions" did the victim take with regard to Evans? The evidence shows that she consented to sex with the other footballer (at a time when Evans wasn't even present), and she accepted that action, but where Evans is concerned, she wasn't aware, and the evidence has shown that his claims of consent, and of her being sober enough to walk unaided to the room, were false.

 

[ViolentPanda]

so, to be clear, you support a law that allows for someone to be charged and potentially convicted as a rapist despite both parties consenting to sex at the time, just because the police, CPS and possibly jury decide that the woman was too drunk to consent when it later turns out that she can't actually remember what happened?

And you support this even when the woman involved can be shown to have been at least able to walk in heels in and out of a hotel lobby under her own steam, so clearly not obviously falling over drunk?

Me, I think this is properly dodgy law making that a lot of people could potentially fall foul of after a drunken one night stand that's later regretted.

Unfortunately for your argument, you've entirely missed the fact that pieces of legislation aren't applied in a void, they're applied in consonance with other legislation, and with mitigation and intent investigated. All of that informs charging, prosecution and court decisions.

 

[ViolentPanda]

does she look paralytic to you in that video?

Does the fact that she doesn't look paralytic prove whether or not she was paralytic?
Of course it doesn't. All it proves is that at the time she appeared on CCTV, she didn't appear to be so drunk that she was "paralytic".
Also, as her blood wasn't taken until "the morning after", the usual provisos with regard to drugs with short half-lives (of which ketamine and rohypnol are two, and the most commonly-used "date rape" drugs) need to be paid attention to.

are you saying that all the people who pull when out on the piss should be deemed as being rapists if the girl was more than 2.5 times the drink drive limit and therefore incapable of legally giving their consent? Or is it just if she can't remember what happened in the morning, not that it should be, as if she was too pissed to give consent then she was too pissed to give consent even if she can remember consenting.

That's a hell of a lot of rapists running around raping women every friday and saturday night in every city and town in the country.

It was always a shit law, and this case seems to have been a particularly shit interpretation of that law if it's setting the bar that low for intoxification leading to someone being judged as being incapable of giving their consent.

No-one is saying any of this.
I find it intriguing that you've constructed such an argument, and that you're defending it so vehemently.

 

[free spirit]

You don't have a clue about how the law works, and this post is evidence that a (very) little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

There's only one thing worse than a barrack-room lawyer. A rape-apologist cunt.

really, well why don't you fucking enlighten me then?

you can start by point me to the bit in the legislation where it says that what happened here is illegal.

I've quoted the CPS guidance, and checked the case law on which it's based, so if you have a different idea of how the law works then please do spit it out.

 

[free spirit]

Does the fact that she doesn't look paralytic prove whether or not she was paralytic?
Of course it doesn't. All it proves is that at the time she appeared on CCTV, she didn't appear to be so drunk that she was "paralytic".
Also, as her blood wasn't taken until "the morning after", the usual provisos with regard to drugs with short half-lives (of which ketamine and rohypnol are two, and the most commonly-used "date rape" drugs) need to be paid attention to.

well how is someone supposed to judge if the girl they've met on a night out is going to be judged at a later date to have been too drunk to consent?

She doesn't look too drunk on the cctv, and the blood alcohol levels, and the list of drinks she'd drunk that night given in court back that up.

As for the date rape drugs, well you've just made that up, it has nothing to do with this case.

No-one is saying any of this.
I find it intriguing that you've constructed such an argument, and that you're defending it so vehemently.

the court is saying this, that is the legal precedent that has been set here, or at least reinforced from the earlier appeal court judgement that set the principle, but not the level at which someone would be judged to be incapacitated through alcohol. Do we have to carry breathalysers with us or something?

I'd seriously suggest that people might want to actually investigate this a bit more before passing judgement.

I'll put it another way, this is the first time anyone has ever been convicted of rape on this basis (as far as I can tell), so might be worthy of a bit more informed discussion than knee jerk 'rape apologist' bollocks.

or has urban really sunk to the level where it's actually impossible to have an informed debate about difficult subjects like this?

 

[SpackleFrog]

mo, its nonsense. There is video footage, iirr, of her being 'helped' upstairs while she is clearly far too pissed to walk - and, therefore, also clearly far too pissed to give informed consent.

If you read the report somebody posted earlier, it mentions the fact that two men filmed the rape through the window. I remember reading at the time in a report on the case that this video was produced and the victim was judged to have been unconscious or nearly unconscious.

I may be remembering wrong, in which case my apologies. In any case the report shows that the two men left immediately after, at which point it would appear the victim was unable to leave the room, with them or on her own.