Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[starfish]

Not sure what changes in law would help but i do know that if "some" men changed their attitudes we wouldnt need changes in law to protect women better.

 

[belboid]

What changes in the law do you think would help? I don't know what happened in that hotel room but if a woman saying 'fuck me harder' is not consent, on the basis that she may have been very drunk, what should be done to make the law protect women better?

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]

Her previous (supposed) history should never have been allowed in court. Simple as that. The 'Secret Lawyer' is wrong to say this contain no precedent, each occasion which makes use if 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.

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 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.

 

[keithy]

OK, I'll row back a bit and say...perhaps it was the other (previous) post's omission that I was reacting to. I suppose I was suggesting 'some' instead of 'so many'...but that changes your meaning.
I retract. Wasn't trying to give offence.

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]

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.

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.

 

[keithy]

I am SICK of MEN (not some men, ALLLLLL MEN) talking about rape and sexual assault then pretending it isn't a gender issue.

COME.

ON.

 

[Spymaster]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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 subsequent to the incident involving c.e. while the other occurred the preceding night.

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]

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).

then they're enthusiastically consenting. I have no idea what point you are trying to make

 

[Pickman's model]

your usual pedantry contributing nothing. The blogs name is irrelevant, and b) makes no difference to what I said. Unless you can show otherwise

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]

then they're enthusiastically consenting.

And if they seem to "enthusiastically consent" at the time and forget about it afterwards?

 

[belboid]

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.

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]

And if they seem to "enthusiastically consent" at the time and forget about it afterwards?

Do you have a point?

 

[Spymaster]

Do you have a point?

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]

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?

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]

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 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]

I don't understand why you are even asking this question ...

Then you're being an even bigger fucking idiot than usual.

 

[bimble]

I have operated in a total blackout many times and people just haven't realised how totally out of it I am - I come across as a bit pissed and certainly not drunk enough to not give consent when in reality the opposite is true. If, in a blackout she behaves in a similar way to me then Evans could easily think she was a bit pissed but able to consent easily enough.

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]

View attachment 93962

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]

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.

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]

Seriously?

It establishes a pattern of behaviour. Namely, having what seemed to others to be consensual sex, than forgetting about it afterwards.

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.

 

[Pickman's model]

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.

yeh, as - once again - the secret barrister shows, this by no means establishes innocence on evans' part, nor lying on x's part.

 

[belboid]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[starfish]

Was his past sexual experiences brought up. Was it mentioned how many times he had cheated on his partner & lied to her?

Regardless of what she has done in the past there was obviously something not right about this encounter.

 

[belboid]

Then you're being an even bigger fucking idiot than usual.

You seem to think you are making some kind of point, other than an obvious one. But you really aren't.

Seriously?

It suggests a pattern of behaviour. Namely, having what seems to others to be consensual sex, than forgetting about it afterwards.

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.

You seem to want a return to the seventies, when a victims sexual history was fair game. Uggh.

 

[trashpony]

If Evans had wanted consent, he could have:
a) knocked on the door
b) not closed the curtains
c) spoken.

He did none of those things.

Doesn't consent - drunken or otherwise - involve a conversation between participants?