Ched Evans

[Triggaaar]

I can't be arsed.

Since you haven't got a clue what you're talking about, that's probably for the best.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I thought people in Germany were always arsed.

I'm having a night off

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Since you haven't got a clue what you're talking about, that's probably for the best.

No. It's Friday night and a discussion about rape isn't top of my list.

 

[Triggaaar]

I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me about the inability to give consent past a certain point. From your post it seems so but from the Judges comments not so. Confused.

I agree that there can be a point beyond which it's impossible to give consent, but that's not what you said:

Drew said "Drunken consent is still consent."
and you replied "Sorry to disagree with you but that's not the case."

The judge was saying that drunken consent is still consent, but it is possible to be so drunk that you're not consenting.

As to my story, perhaps not hugely common but I could take you to an AA meeting tonight where pretty much everyone would identify with that to one degree or another.

Fair point. Having a blackout, however, does not mean you weren't ever capable of giving consent. For example, what was the worst thing you did in that time (I'm not expecting a personal answer, I'm assuming you did nothing bad) - had you taken all leave of your senses, and commit serious crimes - or were you still capable of making decisions? If you checked into hotels etc, I'm sure you were capable for at least some of it.

No. It's Friday night and a discussion about rape isn't top of my list.

Bye then.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

150 pages within our sights! Keep going gang, we'll get to the Botty of this before Ched gets another club I shouldn't wager and remember - all input on this debate is valid, regardless of which side of the debate you're on.

Sadly this thread should run out of steam pretty soon, as it's just going around in circles now.

The one on the Oldham board is only running at about 1000 posts more than this one.

It'll take another side to try and sign Evans to get many more postings on this thread, until his case review happens, anyway.

 

[drew]

Possibly you don't have experience of blackout drinking. I do, lots. One of my more extreme examples was I once blacked out totally for five days in New York. Some how I managed to function, not get hurt and even managed to change hotels but I cannot remember a single moment of it. Any decision I made during that time was not a rational one and any consent I gave for something could not be described as valid. I'd also point out that I had sex in that condition many times.

No I don't have experience of blackout drinking. You say you were blacked out and can't remember but you seem to have done quite a few things while in that state. From the following website ( http://www.addictionpro.com/article/take-blackouts-seriously )

Still more time passed before the significance of loss of memory formation was realized. Blacked-out persons are functioning on long-term episodic, semantic and procedural memory. They remember everything up to the moment of blacking out. They can carry on a conversation, drive a car, have sex, get into a fight. They may appear normal to those around them.

If those are in fact true, and I have no reason to doubt you or the website are wrong, then exactly how is the other party supposed to know? And, if you appear to be acting relatively normal then surely the other party could reasonably be deemed to presume consent, which surely then doesn't make it rape?

 

[drew]

Sorry to disagree with you but that's not the case. I'd draw a parallel with the law of statutory rape in the US. My understanding of that is that a person under a certain age cannot give consent. Therefore it matters not one bit if they give it, they could say it, video it, write it down, whatever but you would still be done for rape as they are deemed incapable of giving it. Same here- at a certain point in someones drunkenness they become incapable of giving valid consent.

http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/ne...urt-appeal-rules-rape-cases-involving-alcohol

 

[clapham_gull]

Nothing to comment on the main subject, but I wouldn't believe the existence of black out drinking (after seemingly being able to walk and talk) unless it had happened to me.

Only the once when I was at University. I wouldn't have able to drink that much (never could outside the house) but I woke up in somebody's house with absolutely no recollection of the night before beyond 7 or 8.

I made my own back (apparently) after turning down going on for a curry in Rusholme.

I work up wrapped up (really) in a rug about lunchtime the next day.

Complete blackout. Never happened since in over 20 years but really scared me.

 

[Triggaaar]

I wouldn't have able to drink that much (never could outside the house) but I woke up in somebody's house with absolutely no recollection of the night before beyond 7 or 8.

I made my own back (apparently) after turning down going on for a curry in Rusholme.

I work up wrapped up (really) in a rug about lunchtime the next day.

Complete blackout. Never happened since in over 20 years but really scared me.

I think you're in one now.

 

[Acker79]

That's not what he is saying though is it! It may have been put better but there are numerous situations in life which shouldn't be there but are. There are holiday destinations where you are advised not to wander into certain areas of a town because of potential trouble, not because you may be a woman but because you are an outsider. Everyone should have the right to go where ever they please but that's not reality. You might think you have the right to walk alone into the most Millwall of Millwall pubs and shout something derogatory about the club but what is the likely outcome! Take the shootings yesterday. Whilst defending freedom of speech 12 people got killed because of cartoons they printed. They had the right to do so but because not everyone out there is level headed and law abiding they set themselves up as targets (especially as they had been fire bombed before) to the psychopaths that turned up on their doorstep yesterday.

How many people are telling comics not to draw antagonising cartoons because they will get killed? How many people are showing little sympathy for the cartoonists because they shouldn't have been writing antagonistic comics? No one does. But rape prevention advise is entirely about women curbing their behaviour leaving men free to do whatever they want.

We're not talking about changing holiday destinations or certain no go areas (something that applies to men and women equally). We're talking about telling women not to live a normal life, not to go out and get drunk, which suggests, deliberately or subconsciously, that women are in some way to blame.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ve-the-right-to-be-as-drunk-and-stupid-as-men
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tyler-kingkade/men-not-to-drink-rape-prevention_b_4108813.html

The exact wording of the text was not disclosed at the trial nor in the evidence reviewed by the Lord Chief Justice when considering whether or not to allow an appeal.

This is from that review,



Either wording has equal standing because both are qualified by the phrase, "or words to that effect"

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

An extract from the transcript of the Judgement of the Court of Appeal as per the link https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2012ewcacrim2559.pdf

'During the taxi journey McDonald sent a text message to the applicant telling him that he had "got a bird" or words to that effect.'

In relation to your post, the crucial part is 'or words to that effect'. The actual wording of the text is not known but the implied message is. 'I've got a bird' or I'm with a girl'. Are seriously suggesting they are miles apart?

With regard to the website, surely if they stated things that weren't truthful from the court case they would be in contempt of court? I believe it is currently under investigation for possible contempt but my understanding is that this relates to the video from the hotel foyer where the father of the girl believes th (at it allows people to identify her. If there were lies on the site then surely the father of the girl would have complained about that sooner or at least reported it to the courts for misrepresentation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...estigate-website-showing-video-of-victim.html


A lot of debate and issues might be addressed if the transcript of the original trial was available on-line (obviously redacted where necessary). Why in the 21st century when so much is on-line do we not have access to the information which was available to anyone who wanted to attend court!

That there are two different versions of what was texted shows that it isn't undisputed.

It doesn't change the fact he has presented one more sympathetic version of the text for a different one. The "undisputed fact" is one thing on his website, another in the court transcript. That, to me, means it isn't undisputed considering it is different to what was said in court.

No, it wouldn't be contempt of court, because those proceedings have been completed. He can say what he likes about them on his website as he is not under oath any more. He can open himself up to the usual libel charges, of course, but if he isn't actually libelling anyone he can still spin things, fudge things, omit things, and outright lie about things.

That's not true. The reason that McDonald could reasonably believe that he had consent is that he had a prior relationship (non-sexual) with the girl and she went willingly with him to the room. Even though she was intoxicated the jury believed that McDonald could reasonably assume consent. I am personally comfortable with that.

I'm not comfortbale with anyone assuming consent. I don't believe that the jury felt he could assume consent given the circumstances, but assume she was aware of what she was consenting to, given the circumstances. A subtle difference, but an important one in this case.

as has been covered earlier, the CCTV showing her walking is not a continuous film and is taking snapshots and so you are missing quite a lot of information. I think in at least one point she stumbles as her arm moves out as if to steady herself but by the time the next image comes up its moved along so its missed but its not able to get a clear picture either way.

She is also stood in the middle of the pavement in one frame, and is completely out of shot in the next, as further indication of how much is missed. I've looked at the video several times, and I'm pretty sure if you look at her feet in relation to the paving slabs, I think she isn't walking in a straight line.



It also seems some people are starting to confuse 'being able to speak' with 'being aware of what consent is and what she is consenting to'

I've had plenty of conversations with people who talk in seemingly coherent sentences, who sometimes remember the evening sometimes don't, but don't remember all the conversations they had. Several members of my family talk in their sleep, carrying on almost complete conversations.

The ability to speak is not intrinsically linked to the ability to consent. It's also why Ched may not know whether he is innocent or guilty. He may be making the same mistake as some of the posters in this thread, confusing the ability to talk with the ability to consent.

 

[Triggaaar]

I don't believe that the jury felt he could assume consent given the circumstances, but assume she was aware of what she was consenting to, given the circumstances. A subtle difference, but an important one in this case.

I think you've got that (the second bit) wrong. I believe the jury found that she was too drunk to give consent, which means she was too drunk to give it to either men. They didn't find McDonald guilty because, although they don't believe he had consent, they didn't think it was beyond reasonable doubt (weren't sure etc) that he didn't think he had consent.

It also seems some people are starting to confuse 'being able to speak' with 'being aware of what consent is and what she is consenting to'

I don't think they are. If so, which people?

I've had plenty of conversations with people who talk in seemingly coherent sentences, who sometimes remember the evening sometimes don't, but don't remember all the conversations they had.

So? That doesn't mean they weren't in any way in control of what they were saying.

The ability to speak is not intrinsically linked to the ability to consent. It's also why Ched may not know whether he is innocent or guilty.

I definitely agree that he 'may not know', because it's possible she was so drunk she didn't know what was happening, but he mistakenly thought she was ok with it (note, if that were the case, he should have been found not guilty). BUT - it's also possible he does know, if for example it was obvious she wasn't too drunk, and she was consenting. If your examples of your friends not remembering the evening is your idea of people not being able to give consent, you have misunderstood the law.

He may be making the same mistake as some of the posters in this thread, confusing the ability to talk with the ability to consent.

As above, which posters, and what exactly did they say to give that idea?

 

[beardy gull]

I definitely agree that he 'may not know', because it's possible she was so drunk she didn't know what was happening, but he mistakenly thought she was ok with it (note, if that were the case, he should have been found not guilty).

You know what, I think I'll go with the Judge and the appeal review on this one if that's ok? (note, saying note in brackets after a statement doesn't make it any more true)

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

He went on to explain: "A woman clearly does not have the capacity to make a choice if she is completely unconscious through the effects of drink and drugs, but there are various stages of consciousness, from being wide awake to dim awareness of reality. In a state of dim and drunken awareness you may, or may not, be in a condition to make choices. So you will need to consider the evidence of the complainant's state and decide these two questions: was she in a condition in which she was capable of making any choice one way or another? If you are sure that she was not, then she did not consent. If, on the other hand, you conclude that she chose to agree to sexual intercourse, or may have done, then you must find the defendants not guilty."

 

[Creaky]

I definitely agree that he 'may not know', because it's possible she was so drunk she didn't know what was happening, but he mistakenly thought she was ok with it (note, if that were the case, he should have been found not guilty).

If that were the case that is no reason in itself for Evans to be found not guilty. His belief has to be judged as 'reasonable' for a not guilty verdict.

I think this is the most likely scenario and explains much about the case and people's actions following the case. Evans appears to sincerely think he is innocent because he believes the girl consented to what happened - however the jury have judged that such a belief was not one that a reasonable person, (the man on the Clapham omnibus test), would have held.

 

[drew]

If that were the case that is no reason in itself for Evans to be found not guilty. His belief has to be judged as 'reasonable' for a not guilty verdict.

I think this is the most likely scenario and explains much about the case and people's actions following the case. Evans appears to sincerely think he is innocent because he believes the girl consented to what happened - however the jury have judged that such a belief was not one that a reasonable person, (the man on the Clapham omnibus test), would have held.

Ok then this raises even more doubt about the conviction. We have people posting that they were in a blackout but were able to do relatively normal things. Others are saying that just because you can speak doesn't mean you are fully aware of what you are saying (or, as in this case, consenting to). If these were the circumstances in this case then how would Evans know at what point this girl went from just being drunk and giving drunken consent to being drunk and incapacitated as to not knowing what she is saying. The two extremes would be comatose at one end of the scale and sober at the other. Evans and McDonalds statements are that she consented to sex with Evans and that she was pro active in assuming positions etc. Exactly how is a reasonable man on an omnibus supposed to deduce from that that she is in fact incapacitated! Because of that, there is too much of an element of doubt to convict.

That is of course all assuming she was that drunk in the first place which, in the eyes of some, hasn't been proven.

 

[Creaky]

Ok then this raises even more doubt about the conviction. We have people posting that they were in a blackout but were able to do relatively normal things. Others are saying that just because you can speak doesn't mean you are fully aware of what you are saying (or, as in this case, consenting to). If these were the circumstances in this case then how would Evans know at what point this girl went from just being drunk and giving drunken consent to being drunk and incapacitated as to not knowing what she is saying. The two extremes would be comatose at one end of the scale and sober at the other. Evans and McDonalds statements are that she consented to sex with Evans and that she was pro active in assuming positions etc. Exactly how is a reasonable man on an omnibus supposed to deduce from that that she is in fact incapacitated! Because of that, there is too much of an element of doubt to convict.

That is of course all assuming she was that drunk in the first place which, in the eyes of some, hasn't been proven.

The jury were obviously convinced from the evidence given by various witnesses as well as video evidence that the girl was drunk - what others may think has been proven is irrelevant.

As regards how to judge whether it was reasonable to assume consent then this goes back to the circumstances - man walks into a room where a drunk girl he's never seen before is having sex with a friend - the friend stops having sex with the girl and leaves, the man immediately takes over from his friend in engaging in sexual activity.

You and other individuals may think that in such circumstances the assumption that the girl gave consent is perfectly reasonable - I would suggest that the majority of men and women wouldn't think so and that the 12 men and women on the jury obviously didn't as they found Evans guilty.

 

[Beach Seagull]

You honestly don't appreciate that there is a very fundamental difference between these two statements;

'I'd like to apologise for the effects that night in Rhyl, have had on many people'

'I'd like to apologise for the effects my behaviour that night in Rhyl, have had on many people'

He is appealing his conviction , so he is not going to apologise for his 'behaviour.'

 

[Da Man Clay]

He is appealing his conviction , so he is not going to apologise for his 'behaviour.'

Of course he can. Regardless of whether or not the appeal shows he is, or is not, a rapist plenty of his behaviour that night is pretty poor.

 

[Beach Seagull]

Of course he can. Regardless of whether or not the appeal shows he is, or is not, a rapist plenty of his behaviour that night is pretty poor.

No he can't. So 'sorry for my behaviour that night but I didn't do anything wrong.' Would you apologise for something when you don't believe you have done anything wrong? The 'he hasn't apologised' brigade are showing a complete ignorance of the law. If you believe in your innocence you don't apologise. Has jeremy bamber ever apologised? Sion Jenkins? Eddie Browning? The Cardiff 3? Birmingham 6? Guildford 4? Like it or not miscarriages of justice do happen and those who feel they are innocent will fight to clear their name.

 

[Da Man Clay]

No he can't. So 'sorry for my behaviour that night but I didn't do anything wrong.' Would you apologise for something when you don't believe you have done anything wrong? The 'he hasn't apologised' brigade are showing a complete ignorance of the law. If you believe in your innocence you don't apologise. Has jeremy bamber ever apologised? Sion Jenkins? Eddie Browning? The Cardiff 3? Birmingham 6? Guildford 4? Like it or not miscarriages of justice do happen and those who feel they are innocent will fight to clear their name.

No one is stupid enough to expect an apology for the act itself - especially given he feels he hasn't committed an offence and is going through an appeal. Nothing wrong with that.

What he CAN apologise for, without affecting an appeal or the act itself in anyway, is some of his behaviour from the rest of the night. For example just turning up at the hotel because his mate had a girl, or blagging an extra key card from the receptionist to 'sneak' in, or the way he had absolutely no consideration for his own girlfriend at home. I'm sure there are other things but I haven't read the case for a while and can't be bothered to look at other questionable actions from the night.

Chucking in a load of totally irrelevant miscarages of justice doesn't help. It's not as if he's been fitted up. He admits most of his actions. It's a pretty narrow law argument that's in question.

It would have been pretty easy to say in the statement he put out something along the lines of "Whilst I intend to clear my name of the offence I have been convicted of and maintain my innocence I now come to realise that some of my behaviour that night was not of the standard expected of me and I apologise for any harm this may have caused"

 

[Beach Seagull]

No one is stupid enough to expect an apology for the act itself - especially given he feels he hasn't committed an offence and is going through an appeal. Nothing wrong with that.

What he CAN apologise for, without affecting an appeal or the act itself in anyway, is some of his behaviour from the rest of the night. For example just turning up at the hotel because his mate had a girl, or blagging an extra key card from the receptionist to 'sneak' in, or the way he had absolutely no consideration for his own girlfriend at home. I'm sure there are other things but I haven't read the case for a while and can't be bothered to look at other questionable actions from the night.

Chucking in a load of totally irrelevant miscarages of justice doesn't help. It's not as if he's been fitted up. He admits most of his actions. It's a pretty narrow law argument that's in question.

It would have been pretty easy to say in the statement he put out something along the lines of "Whilst I intend to clear my name of the offence I have been convicted of and maintain my innocence I now come to realise that some of my behaviour that night was not of the standard expected of me and I apologise for any harm this may have caused"

Why should he? His actions like sneaking into the room were maybe immoral but not illegal. Even if he did apologise along the lines of what you suggested it wouldn't be enough to appease everyone. We would then hear 'but he's still a rapist'