|
Prince John posted:Allow me to introduce you to all the people serving sentences far in excess of their allocated time because they maintain their innocence and are thus ineligible for parole. Miscarriages of justice happen all the time and, indeed, this may be one. Wait and see what the panel says. You can't consent when you don't have the mental faculties to do so.
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
If you're too drunk to remember consent then chances are you're not in a fit state to give consent, thus making it rape.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
Gum posted:so what are you arguing here? that they might have lied about having sex with her? No, I'm suggesting that they may have told the truth about having consensual sex with her. If she really was too drunk to consent, then it's inconsistent for her to be sufficiently sober to consent to one of them but too drunk to consent to the other. Especially when how drunk she was is heavily disputed and a substantial period (1-2 hours) had elapsed since she had last had a drink. Hookerbot: I do agree with your general revulsion about the attitude. I guess I meant to ask was, "given Evan's attitude is no different to that held by every footballer treating women as objects, should he be barred from football when his compatriots are not?" Edit: Gonzo McFee posted:If you're too drunk to remember consent then chances are you're not in a fit state to give consent, thus making it rape. TinTower posted:You can't consent when you don't have the mental faculties to do so. To reiterate - it's the inconsistency that bothers me. If she was too drunk to consent, they should both be guilty. She had left the nightclub and stopped drinking 1 hour before going back to the hotel. I accept that alcohol doesn't enter the blood instantly, but we don't have a situation where she carries on drinking herself into insensibility throughout the night until Ched Evans shows up when she's comatose. Prince John fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Jan 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Do you have anything to contribute or are you just going to shitpost? It's pretty fun, I get what the TRP crew see in it now
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
Prince John posted:No, I'm suggesting that they may have told the truth about having consensual sex with her. I disagree with this completely. The reason the first guy got off was because she willingly got into a taxi with him and willingly went to his room with him, implying consent. Evans turned up later and she has no memory of it so consent can't be implied. I agree with the verdicts, is what I'm saying, even though I disagree with the thread majority on his future employment prospects.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Prince John posted:No, I'm suggesting that they may have told the truth about having consensual sex with her. but forensic evidence of sexual activity (or lack of such) doesnt say anything about whether or not the sex was consensual, just whether it happened. the only way a lack of evidence for sexual activity would be relevant was if you were claiming there was no sex at all
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:I disagree with this completely. The reason the first guy got off was because she willingly got into a taxi with him and willingly went to his room with him, implying consent. Evans turned up later and she has no memory of it so consent can't be implied. I agree with the verdicts, is what I'm saying, even though I disagree with the thread majority on his future employment prospects. Correct, getting into the cab willingly with the other dude introduced enough doubt to be considered reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:Being unrepentant is irrelevant. No-one specifically commented on this lovely line so I'm going to. Being unrepentant is important because if he's unrepentant, he cannot make any claim to be rehabilitated. Rehabilitation starts with the acknowledgement that what you did is perceived as being wrong by society (not the same as saying you think it's wrong) and that you're sorry for having done it. He's never said sorry for what happened and he's never stated that having sex with someone too drunk to consent can be perceived to be wrong. Without those there can be no claim that he's rehabilitated which, combined with the fact he's on licence, is an argument against him returning to his former position. His victim has had to move address five times now and change her name twice because of the abuse she's received from his supporters. He's never once said he's sorry that she's had to do that. He's never said his supporters are wrong for targeting her for abuse. He's never asked his supporters to stop targeting her. His own website has a video of her that makes her identifiable. The only thing he's apologised for is cheating on his girlfriend.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Prince John posted:To reiterate - it's the inconsistency that bothers me. If she was too drunk to consent, they should both be guilty. oh yeah im totally with you here. but 'someone else got away with it' really isnt an excuse
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:It is in everyones interest that this case is reviewed as to set a precedent that can be cited later. Everyone except rape victims, who once again get sent the clear message that they best keep quiet because otherwise their lives will be ruined and no conviction will ever be good enough to convince people they aren't filthy liars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:He cant really be repentent while his appeal is ongoing can he? Then he should have given the standard "I cannot comment while my case is under appeal. It's a pretty common statement people give. Instead he made a video and his girlfriend went on TV. tentish klown posted:There's a couple of inconsistencies here. It's irrelevant that he hasn't finished his sentence, as everyone making a point of that will not change their minds once he has finished it quote:It's also irrelevant that he's unrepentant, because (most) people wouldn't change their minds if he did repent and say sorry. Again no, several people have said it would have made a difference. I would have definitely considered him going back as a footballer acceptable if he had fully accepted what he had done and tried to rectify that through rehabilitation and maybe joining a campaign to try and help change public perception on the widely ignored issues of rape. quote:football players are generally *the worst* role models as my post before shows.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Gum posted:oh yeah im totally with you here. but 'someone else got away with it' really isnt an excuse Except he's wrong, like others have repeatedly pointed out. The first guy got acquitted because she got in a cab with him and went to a hotel room with him, which suggests she did consent to sex with him. Evans turned up later during the period where she has no memory and therefore there's a realistic prospect she didn't consent to sex with him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Prince John posted:
I guess if every time one of them is caught doing something like that they are shunned then hopefully after time they will stop doing it and it won't be the norm any more. Like the racist tree that was posted earlier in this thread (or maybe last months).
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
kim jong-illin posted:Except he's wrong, like others have repeatedly pointed out. i was under the impression that she was already blackout drunk when she got into the cab. if she was still reasonably sober then, then that does make a difference
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:"All you have to back this up is that he had sex with her while she was too drunk to consent". No. All you have to back this up is that *the jury decided* that she was too drunk to consent. There is a possible scenario that she did in fact consent, was lucid enough to communicate this, but was drunk enough that she couldn't remember it in the morning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
tentish klown posted:No. All you have to back this up is that *the jury decided* that she was too drunk to consent. Probably not though, yeah?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
kim jong-illin posted:No-one specifically commented on this lovely line so I'm going to. I agree with you, don't worry. He won't say sorry for a number of reasons, the most obvious of which is his appeal. He can't apologise for a thing he says he didn't do. Like that counsellor a while back accused of sexual harassment who was scared an apology would turn into a lawsuit. Of course he should say sorry, it's the loving least he could do. I despise the little prick, and his supporters, of which I am not one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Gum posted:i was under the impression that she was already blackout drunk when she got into the cab. if she was still reasonably sober then, then that does make a difference The receptionist at the hotel testified she appeared to be drunk, but he didn't say she was all over the place. She is on CCTV walking unaided in high heeled shoes and bending down to pick belongings from the road after arriving at the hotel. The porter, listening at their hotel room door, testified that he heard one of the men ask for oral sex. He testified he heard no sounds of distress or struggle, just sounds of male and female voices having sex. She isn't incapable, over 1 hour after stopping drinking, when arriving at the hotel. Therefore I find it odd that she should be more incapable to the point of being unable to consent by the time Ched Evans showed up. I accept alcohol doesn't enter the blood instantly, but it doesn't usually happen over a timeframe of hours. Prince John fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Jan 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Gum posted:i was under the impression that she was already blackout drunk when she got into the cab. if she was still reasonably sober then, then that does make a difference She probably was, but her actions gave the jury enough doubt to find McDonald not guilty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Gum posted:i was under the impression that she was already blackout drunk when she got into the cab. if she was still reasonably sober then, then that does make a difference It doesn't make a difference. Because she can't remember consenting, the jury has to look at her actions to decide if those were in keeping with someone who had likely consented to having sex. Willingly getting into a cab with someone to go to a hotel implies that she may have consented to having sex, which is the suggested outcome of getting into a cab with someone you met outside a chip shop and going back to their hotel. That doesn't mean she did consent, it just means there's enough doubt over whether she did that you can't safely convict someone of rape, which is why the first guy got acquitted. There's nothing to suggest she knew about Evans when she may have consented to having sex with his friend because he turned up at the hotel after them and initially was just watching them gently caress. That's why he wasn't acquitted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:I agree with you, don't worry. He won't say sorry for a number of reasons, the most obvious of which is his appeal. He can't apologise for a thing he says he didn't do. Like that counsellor a while back accused of sexual harassment who was scared an apology would turn into a lawsuit. Of course he should say sorry, it's the loving least he could do. I despise the little prick, and his supporters, of which I am not one. Good to know. It's more directed at tentish klown and serious gaylord as they're the ones defending him the most. Even if he can't apologise while his appeal's in place, he can still apologise for what she's going through at the hands of his supporters right now and ask them to stop, as well as taking down the video from his website. That he won't do any of those things just reinforces perceptions of him as an unrepentant sexual predator.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
kim jong-illin posted:Good to know. It's more directed at tentish klown and serious gaylord as they're the ones defending him the most. Whoa whoa whoa. I'm not having that. He's an utter unrepentant scumbag. I'm not defending his actions at all. He is guilty. The case needs to go back before the courts to remove any possibility of doubt due to the judges actions so it can be used as a precedent in other cases like this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
tentish klown posted:No. All you have to back this up is that *the jury decided* that she was too drunk to consent. I always thought tentish only posted to defend rich assholes. Turns out he's also there if anyone needs to stick up for terrible rapists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:"All you have to back this up is that he had sex with her while she was too drunk to consent". She may have been too drunk to consent but not too drunk to say "yes". Now personally I think our lad here took the position that he is a footballer and all the girls want to bag a footballer so he assumed consent would be given even if she were sober and conscious. But unless Evans was carrying a blood alcohol meter with him, it's not past the realm of possibility that he wouldn't have known the difference. As such, he could be protesting his innocence with absolute honesty while still being a rapist. A serious question. Two people get drunk and have sex. In the morning, it turns out one of them was too drunk to remember consenting. Is the other one a rapist, or are they innocent because they were too drunk to notice how drunk their partner was? E: Apologies, most of this got said while I was typing it up, with the difference that I still think he's a rapist. Jedit fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Jan 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Yaaaaay more rape scenario games!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
kim jong-illin posted:It doesn't make a difference. Because she can't remember consenting, the jury has to look at her actions to decide if those were in keeping with someone who had likely consented to having sex. Willingly getting into a cab with someone to go to a hotel implies that she may have consented to having sex, which is the suggested outcome of getting into a cab with someone you met outside a chip shop and going back to their hotel. That doesn't mean she did consent, it just means there's enough doubt over whether she did that you can't safely convict someone of rape, which is why the first guy got acquitted. Don't the jury have to decide whether the prosecution have proved she didn't consent, beyond all reasonable doubt? A lot of your explanation seems to place the burden of proof on the defendant - i.e. "enough doubt that you can't safely convict". It's as if their guilt is predetermined, unless mitigating factors are available.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Jedit posted:A serious question. Two people get drunk and have sex. In the morning, it turns out one of them was too drunk to remember consenting. Is the other one a rapist, or are they innocent because they were too drunk to notice how drunk their partner was? Its hard because blacking out isn't necessarily a real measure of how impaired your faculties were. For example the more regularly you get pissed the more easily you black out but you don't get drunk any easily. Anecdotally its not uncommon for me to black out and my friends to assume me to be relatively sober, I black out easily but it takes a lot more before I become an incompetent mess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
maybe there are certain degrees of non-consensual sex and using the catch-all term 'rapist' is antiquated maybe
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:maybe there are certain degrees of non-consensual sex and using the catch-all term 'rapist' is antiquated I dunno, it's still rape no matter the degree of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
So is he just not allowed to resume his job? I mean I doubt a professional footballer has that many jobs they can switch to. It's not a useful reference for anything else. Does he apply to stack shelves somewhere? Make websites from home? Retire? The guys a massive tool, but the idea that anyone convicted of a serious crime isn't allowed to ever take a high paying job again is kind of hosed up too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
Jedit posted:As such, he could be protesting his innocence with absolute honesty while still being a rapist. This is actually very common amongst convicted rapists. This is often seen to be the fault that many in society still view a rapist as a man hiding in bushes jumping out at women in dark alleys and anything other than this isn't rape.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Prince John posted:This is the nub of it. She never made a complaint of rape to the police. According to the supporter's website (so take it for what it's worth) there is no forensic evidence linking either men to the 'sexual act'. They were charged entirely based on their own accounts of what happened. Wait, is this supposed to be evidence in his favour? Rape is notoriously difficult to prosecute anyway, if they still managed to find him guilty based almost entirely on what he and his friends said happened then that's pretty loving damning wouldn't you say? Semprini posted:Out of curiosity, what would the likely reaction be if Evans turned round and said "gently caress it, if you keep stopping me from getting a job I'll just go on benefits and you can pay for me"? On here? If he can't find employment then that's what the welfare system is there for. If you mean in public then it might be a good smokescreen move for him
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
I can't believe his girlfriend stuck by him
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Wait, is this supposed to be evidence in his favour? Rape is notoriously difficult to prosecute anyway, if they still managed to find him guilty based almost entirely on what he and his friends said happened then that's pretty loving damning wouldn't you say? It's not notoriously difficult to prosecute - this is a myth. It has higher conviction rates than other serious crimes. They haven't convicted him on what he said happened (he said it was consensual) - I just find it odd that he's volunteered a version of events to police that he obviously regarded as non-controversial but had he just 'no commented' then none of this would have ever happened. I'm not really seeing how it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was rape, given the only version of events was his own and he said it was consensual. It all seems very wishy washy and full of inconsistencies. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall in the courtroom. In other, tangentially related news, there have been renewed calls for anonymity for people accused of rape by Mark Pritchard. quote:In a short statement outside the House of Commons, Mr Pritchard thanked fellow MPs and constituents for supporting him since the news of his arrest emerged six weeks ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
This is has very quickly gone from should Ched Evans a convicted rapist and sex offender be allowed to play professional football? (which is a fair question) to did Evans really do anything?Fans posted:So is he just not allowed to resume his job? The major issues seem to be that 1) footballers are rightly or wrongly are seen as role models by kids 2) football clubs claim to represent their local communities 3) Sponsors and celebrity fans/former players aren't willing to back the club willing to hire him, either on their own moral grounds or public pressure. It seems unlikely he's going to have a great career even he does manage to find somewhere willing to take him. But I don't think that some how because he had a good life before prison and he might have to settle doing something he doesn't like and doesn't pay well like 90% of the rest of us is some sort of massive injustice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
While we have been arguing about this we all missed the opportunity to grab UKIP.ORG http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30695618
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Prince John posted:I'm not really seeing how it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was rape, given the only version of events was his own and he said it was consensual. It all seems very wishy washy and full of inconsistencies. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall in the courtroom. Probably because what he described was considered rape, even if his tagline was 'it was totally consensual bro'? I'm not really seeing the general confusion here
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Prince John posted:It's not notoriously difficult to prosecute - this is a myth. It has higher conviction rates than other serious crimes. They haven't convicted him on what he said happened (he said it was consensual) - I just find it odd that he's volunteered a version of events to police that he obviously regarded as non-controversial but had he just 'no commented' then none of this would have ever happened. I'm not really seeing how it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was rape, given the only version of events was his own and he said it was consensual. It all seems very wishy washy and full of inconsistencies. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall in the courtroom. How much of this are you taking off his supporters website rather than the stuff related to the trial that was made public?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:While we have been arguing about this we all missed the opportunity to grab UKIP.ORG Surprised nobody's got ukip.eu to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:48 |
|
