Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison
- Thread starter Bahnhof Strasse
- Start date
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Her previous (supposed) history should never have been allowed in court. Simple as that. The 'Secret Lawyer' is wrong to say this case contains no precedent - each occasion which makes use of such history sets up the limits for what can be used in other cases, and this sets the bar very low indeed. A bad day.
bimble
floofy
Fair enough, yes. Agree that the allowing of that evidence is really troubling and this high profile case will definitely put other women off from coming forward which is the last thing we needed.
It's the idea that a woman saying 'fuck me harder' doesn't mean consent that I find difficult but maybe I misunderstood your post.
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
A little of topic but what do people think of this article?
What if there’s more sexual violence now, not just reports of it? | Joan Smith
When I heard the statistics the other day I wondered the same? I am worried that there is a good chance that the number of rapes is actually increasing not just the reporting of it. But I do think people are getting a better understanding of what can constitute rape.
There is even a little bit of an optimists in my that hopes that despite the travesty of the last couple of days, overall this case might have helped that process along slightly.
What if there’s more sexual violence now, not just reports of it? | Joan Smith
When I heard the statistics the other day I wondered the same? I am worried that there is a good chance that the number of rapes is actually increasing not just the reporting of it. But I do think people are getting a better understanding of what can constitute rape.
There is even a little bit of an optimists in my that hopes that despite the travesty of the last couple of days, overall this case might have helped that process along slightly.
What, you mean the one where I talked about MY OWN EXPERIENCE of being sexually assaulted and how these testimonials being allowed is very likely to make people less likely to go to the police?
If you think every time somebody doesn't specifically say 'some' then they mean all... come on. Or was it really that you can't cope with people talking about male violence towards women because OMG PPL MIGHT REALISE THAT MEN ARE VIOLENT TOWARDS WOMEN AND WOMEN DIE EVERY FUCKING DAY.
Fuck off dikk edd.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Rather depends on how conscious the person saying it is, no? If they can barely get those words (that may well never have been said at all) out of their mouths, they're not conscious enough to consent.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Yes. The difficulty is in defining at what point someone should believe that "yes" and "fuck me harder" doesn't actually constitute consent. Legally, how do you define that?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
if you had read the blog with the attention it deserved a) you'd have noticed it's not 'the secret lawyer' but 'the secret barrister'; b) your forensic mind would have identified that one of the statements concerning X's sexual behaviour was about an event subsequent to the incident involving c.e. while the other had happened the preceding night.
bimble
floofy
This goes round and round. Everybody (I think) understands that having sex with someone who is barely conscious , can't get words out etc, is rape. That is clear: If you have sex with a semi conscious woman you're a rapist.
The only question is what if they are totally conscious but really drunk, enthusiastically consenting whilst pissed.
(I'm just talking in general now not about this case).
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
I don't think so; I was referring to this post:-
Very angry and upset about this whole thing and people's reactions are sickening.
Which I thought might have benefitted from the word 'some' in front of 'people's'.But not important and I've clearly caused upset. Sorry.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
your usual pedantry contributing nothing. The blogs name is irrelevant, and b) makes no difference to what I said. Unless you can show otherwise
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
then they're enthusiastically consenting. I have no idea what point you are trying to make
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
right. let's not let the facts get in the way of a good argument. i suppose now you'll say that when you said "her previous (supposed) history" you meant whatever you want it to mean.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
And if they seem to "enthusiastically consent" at the time and forget about it afterwards?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Right, so your entire point is that one of the people she supposedly said this too was after she was assaulted by evans. What difference does that make regarding precedence - which is the key point. None. Also, if you want to be properly pedantic, it is a 'previous' history from the juries POV, as it is still her past.
You're not even a good pedant, just a nit picker.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Do you have a point?
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Do you have an answer?
If someone appears to enthusiastically consent during the act, then subsequently forgets about it, is the other party guilty of rape?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I don't understand why you are even asking this question, you seem to think it is saying something clever. It isn't. The answer is obvious.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
you say that this case sets a precedent. you are, to the best of my knowledge, not legally qualified. which makes your opinion on this case setting a precedent utterly worthless. turning to your point about being properly pedantic, there are three events which the jury considered surrounding the issue of consent.
1) 28/5/11
2) 29/5/11, the night ched evans and x met
3) two weeks after
when you bring up the issue of her previous history, that means stuff concerning events prior to 29/5/11. while the later event may have been in the past when the matter came to trial, it was not her previous history on the night of 29/5/11. the events of 29/5/11 may have been seen by the jury as similar to events both before and after, thus introducing at least an element of doubt regarding the absence of consent necessary for a second conviction.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Then you're being an even bigger fucking idiot than usual.
bimble
floofy
This was a really brave post. Don't think I've ever experienced total blackout but a friend of mine has several times, woken up not knowing what she did the night before.
The way the law is at the moment, everything depends on whether the man reasonably thought that the woman was consenting, so if she acted enthusiastic and up for it then it was not rape, even if she can't remember it. The alternative to this is to change the law so that having sex with very drunk people is illegal, regardless of how they are acting at the time. So something like making them walk in a straight line.
(again, not a comment on this case, just in general)
1%er
Well-Known Member
The people who posted those tweets are just showing their ignorance. The fact that a jury found Evans "not guilty" doesn't mean he was "found innocent" there is no such finding in English law, it means that the prosecution didn't provide evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" of his guilt. This verdict should have no reflection on the defendant, it says nothing about her.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Seriously?It suggests a pattern of behaviour. Namely, having what seems to others to be consensual sex, than forgetting about it afterwards.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
given yer man's inability to incorporate the facts into his analysis of this case, pa, i'm not sure it's worth giving his views any further consideration.
It establishes a pattern of behaviour. Namely, having what seemed to others to be consensual sex, than forgetting about it afterwards.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yeh, as - once again - the secret barrister shows, this by no means establishes innocence on evans' part, nor lying on x's part.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
same as the fest of us then. But seeing as you think we must be qualified in something before being able to comment, we an now safely ignore everything you say unless its about putting books in the right order.
Still doesn't speak to what I was saying tho, does it? The point - the entire point - is around her sexual history, and it's inclusion in this case. Whether an event took place before or after her abuse by evans makes absolutely no difference. It should not have been allowed, and the fact that it was allowed creates a new boundary for how such evidence can be used. That is precedent setting.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
You seem to think you are making some kind of point, other than an obvious one. But you really aren't.
The argument you are quoting was about precedence, not about whether you believe it to be relevant or not. So your point is completely misdirected.
It suggests a pattern of behaviour. Namely, having what seems to others to be consensual sex, than forgetting about it afterwards.
You seem to want a return to the seventies, when a victims sexual history was fair game. Uggh.
Similar threads
