Ched Evans

[drew]

Whether she was unconscious, semi-conscious or conscious, and did not consent but Evans still proceeded, that's rape. Independent witnesses saw her in no state to defend herself. To Evans and his arrogant mates, it was easy defenceless 'meat'. Perhaps if and when he gets his job back as a well paid footballer, next time he will stick to willing groupies. As with Marlon King, being a well paid footballer doesn't give them the unilateral right to get whatever they want from any female that takes their fancy.

Can you clarify what these independent witnesses actually said? According to her friends that gave evidence, and presumably you accept that they know her better than you or I, she wasn't particularly drunk. The owner of the kebab shop, I believe, made a comment that she was drunk. What exactly does that mean. Being drunk to fly a plane, ie zero alcohol in your system, too drunk to drive, 80ml in your blood, a little stagger, stumbling, slurring, unconcious. She was reportedly in the Kebab shop for an hour but wasn't just sitting in a corner blacked out. There is no evidence that confirms that she was so drunk she couldn't make a decision about consent, only her testimony that she can't remember what happened. That surely creates an element of doubt.

 

[symyjym]

She didn't know that she'd had sex, she'd wet herself so I would imagine (I don't know) that she'd had a shower the following morning, so there wouldn't have been any DNA. The one thing rape victims cannot do before DNA tests is wash or shower.

Yes, but he would not have known that, if "hypothetically" that was the case.

I don't know if there was any DNA recovered from the scene, but neither would have Evans.

I also don't know the timeline of how it was reported, whether it was that very morning or days later. But again Evans would not have known when it was reported or how fresh or not the evidence was or if any at all.

 

[symyjym]

And the most important bit: condoms were used and neither man ejaculated anyway - probably too drunk.

Where did you get that info from?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Well, he ain't going to be training at Sheffield United.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/30054475

 

[Husty]

I haven't seen his website, but if they have said that they really are clutching at straws, it sounds flippant and not very well thought out. I don't know how the "no comment" would help them if DNA proved he did have sex with her. He would have probably risked 8 years if he took that option

So you don't know anything about the case other than what you have read in the media and yet you're here commenting? I'm confused.

 

[Husty]

Whether she was unconscious, semi-conscious or conscious, and did not consent but Evans still proceeded, that's rape. Independent witnesses saw her in no state to defend herself. To Evans and his arrogant mates, it was easy defenceless 'meat'. Perhaps if and when he gets his job back as a well paid footballer, next time he will stick to willing groupies. As with Marlon King, being a well paid footballer doesn't give them the unilateral right to get whatever they want from any female that takes their fancy.

Pathetic post, you've clearly made your mind up and now your happy to fit the evidence into the nasty picture in your head.

 

[symyjym]

So you don't know anything about the case other than what you have read in the media and yet you're here commenting? I'm confused.

No need to be confused. I have read the case summary https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans not the spin from his website or the media.

 

[dazzer6666]

I've had my drink spiked, I know it goes on, obviously I don't condone it ever. Obviously.

However, my point is I don't see how anyone could look at the facts of this case and come to the conclusion that the girl was raped. Taken advantage of? Yeh probably but there is no evidence that she didn't consent to anything and there is no evidence that either man would have done anything if she had not consented. You might not like the way he acted that night, I'm not here to defend it but I am here to say that what he did isn't what hes been convicted of doing. It's a travesty, and a dangerous precedent for men. I've been out and I've been very drunk and slept with another girl who was very drunk, why should I then be worried that shes going to press charges for rape? I'm not a rapist.

And no, there is nothing in our law that says a girl has to be in a fit state to consent or its rape. Doesn't actually work like that.

'No evidence she didn't consent'...........but that's the point - it's evidence that she did consent that stops it being rape.

 

[Sergio Garcia]

'No evidence she didn't consent'...........but that's the point - it's evidence that she did consent that stops it being rape.[/QUOTE

Just read the notes - isn't the point that she was not able to consent?

 

[drew]

No need to be confused. I have read the case summary https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans not the spin from his website or the media.

A shame you can't be more objective. Surely the point about justice is you consider both the prosecution and the defence. It might enlighten you or it might not, what have you got to lose?

 

[drew]

'No evidence she didn't consent'...........but that's the point - it's evidence that she did consent that stops it being rape.[/QUOTE

Just read the notes - isn't the point that she was not able to consent?

Actually, isn't the point whether or not you agree she was unable to give consent?

 

[dazzer6666]

Actually, isn't the point whether or not you agree she was unable to give consent?

Personally I don't know because I haven't heard all the evidence presented to the jury. They thought not, so I'll go with that.

 

[BensGrandad]

Sheff Utd withdrawn permission for him to train with them and possiblg signing him due to the bad publicity it generated
as per UTV News at 10.

 

[symyjym]

A shame you can't be more objective. Surely the point about justice is you consider both the prosecution and the defence. It might enlighten you or it might not, what have you got to lose?

Ched Evans's website puts his own spin on it, whereas the case summary outlines the basic facts. I’ve read inconsistencies from his angle and from what I have seen, it doesn’t deserve any more of my time on it. Is that objective enough for you?

I will certainly take an interest in his appeal when there is an independently written document on it. As it stands I have nothing to prove, and I wouldn’t want to dedicate any more of my time sifting through the bullshit any more than I have done already.

 

[dazzer6666]

Ched Evans's website puts his own spin on it, whereas the case summary outlines the basic facts. I’ve read inconsistencies from his angle and from what I have seen, it doesn’t deserve any more of my time on it. Is that objective enough for you?

I will certainly take an interest in his appeal when there is an independently written document on it. As it stands I have nothing to prove, and I wouldn’t want to dedicate any more of my time sifting through the bullshit any more than I have done already.

Well put. Same here. Good luck to him if/when he appeals - if he is genuinely innocent then he deserves to have the verdict overturned - events so far indicate this is unlikely though.

 

[drew]

Ched Evans's website puts his own spin on it, whereas the case summary outlines the basic facts. I’ve read inconsistencies from his angle and from what I have seen, it doesn’t deserve any more of my time on it. Is that objective enough for you?

I will certainly take an interest in his appeal when there is an independently written document on it. As it stands I have nothing to prove, and I wouldn’t want to dedicate any more of my time sifting through the bullshit any more than I have done already.

It beggars belief that you feel unable to look at one section of that website which has, as they state, undisputed facts. If you did, like Steve S. it might well raise questions to that the Evans site doesn't answer. Still, you seem to have dug your heels in so I'll try not to suggest it to you again.

 

[Hamilton]

Oh please, so any girl who has had a couple of drinks is off limits to any man who has also had a couple of drinks on the basis that she might not want to sleep with him when sober? Sorry but that's just not how it works.

That's not what Steve.S said. You've twisted what he posted.

Putting that aside, even if both parties are drunk and one says no, then it is no. If both explicitly say yes and then regret it in the morning, then that is not no, that is just something either party has to put down to experience. If one party is drunk and another party takes advantage when the first party is unable to give consent, then in the morning, that is no.

 

[Hamilton]

You are wrong, that is not the law. This is the law as defined by the Sexual Offences Act:

A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

The Act later says (section 74) "a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice."

Hence the link I sent previously where the common law precedent was set in 2005, as 'drunken consent is still consent' as there is no specific provision for drunkeness, only capacity.

And a key passage here is "including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents."

So for example, simply asking someone who incapacitated from alcohol whether they consent may not be deemed a sufficient defence.

 

[symyjym]

It beggars belief that you feel unable to look at one section of that website which has, as they state, undisputed facts. If you did, like Steve S. it might well raise questions to that the Evans site doesn't answer. Still, you seem to have dug your heels in so I'll try not to suggest it to you again.

I am not here to do a PHD in criminology let alone dedicate my time to the Ched Evans case. I would rather let the people he is paying good money to, to get on with that.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

I've had my drink spiked, I know it goes on, obviously I don't condone it ever. Obviously.

However, my point is I don't see how anyone could look at the facts of this case and come to the conclusion that the girl was raped. Taken advantage of? Yeh probably but there is no evidence that she didn't consent to anything and there is no evidence that either man would have done anything if she had not consented. You might not like the way he acted that night, I'm not here to defend it but I am here to say that what he did isn't what hes been convicted of doing. It's a travesty, and a dangerous precedent for men. I've been out and I've been very drunk and slept with another girl who was very drunk, why should I then be worried that shes going to press charges for rape? I'm not a rapist.

And no, there is nothing in our law that says a girl has to be in a fit state to consent or its rape. Doesn't actually work like that.

Not sure its a dangerous precedent. It just means you can't sneak into drunk girls rooms in the middle of the night.....