oldtype Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 None of us have access to the full slate of evidence. Twelve people (or whatever number juries have in England) who did thought he was guilty. It's inherently pointless to question the decision based on a bunch of rumors/hearsay/conjecture. It's like trying to argue whether a goal was offside or not based off nothing but BBC text updates. No one's doing that, they're doing it based on a submitted appeal that includes witness and professional accounts. That's a lazy post, Oldtype. Okay, there is a decent summary of relevant facts in this appeal filing. Post amended to "trying to argue whether a goal was offside or not based off nothing but the match report." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 That analogy man. Jesus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Needs moar cars. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 There's rules about why you can't tattoo someone while they're pissed, why you can't get people to sign legal documents when they're intoxicated, why you can't get your gran to change her will when she's off her tits on anesthetic. Not being able to consent to things when you're intoxicated is a pretty well established concept, it's not special treatment for women. Ergo any sex with someone who is intoxicated (to any degree) is sex without consent and is therefore by definition rape should that person later decide they would not have made the same decision if sober. That is the logical conclusion of this line of argument, and I'd suggest that if that is the case, then there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of non-convicted rapists (of either sex) walking the streets of Britain today. Some of these rapists will be famous footballers, pop stars, actors, etc, others will be treating you at the doctors or in hospital, and many will even be teaching your children. Frightening. This is the actual stance of the law btw: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/ and this would seem to be the most relevant section to this case: The question of capacity to consent is particularly relevant when a complainant is intoxicated by alcohol or affected by drugs. In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. Further, they identified that capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, depends on the facts of the case. It would seem that the jury decided that at the point of getting into the taxi and going back to the hotel the woman was capable of offering consent, but subsequently lost that capacity later in the evening without further consumption of alcohol or drugs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stottie Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 With the media bandwagon around the case, some of which is understandable given his profession, I can't see him winning any appeal. Him going from "Ched Evans the rapist" to "the wrongly imprisoned (and defamed) Ched Evans" would embarrass too many people and go against the message they are trying to send about date rape. [Probably giggs] The charges where dropped against Loic Remy when he was here but I wonder how far off the same kind of trial he was. We were obviously happy to employ him with gang rape charges hanging over him [/giggs] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 There's rules about why you can't tattoo someone while they're pissed, why you can't get people to sign legal documents when they're intoxicated, why you can't get your gran to change her will when she's off her tits on anesthetic. Not being able to consent to things when you're intoxicated is a pretty well established concept, it's not special treatment for women. Ergo any sex with someone who is intoxicated (to any degree) is sex without consent and is therefore by definition rape should that person later decide they would not have made the same decision if sober. That is the logical conclusion of this line of argument, and I'd suggest that if that is the case, then there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of non-convicted rapists (of either sex) walking the streets of Britain today. Some of these rapists will be famous footballers, pop stars, actors, etc, others will be treating you at the doctors or in hospital, and many will even be teaching your children. Frightening. This is the actual stance of the law btw: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/ and this would seem to be the most relevant section to this case: The question of capacity to consent is particularly relevant when a complainant is intoxicated by alcohol or affected by drugs. In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. Further, they identified that capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, depends on the facts of the case. It would seem that the jury decided that at the point of getting into the taxi and going back to the hotel the woman was capable of offering consent, but subsequently lost that capacity later in the evening without further consumption of alcohol or drugs. another good post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 I think there's a key difference between meeting someone on a night out while you're both a bit drunk to humping a passed out woman who came home with your mate. Not that I know the circumstances of this exact case, but the 'logical conclusion' that UV posted is not anywhere near as self evident as it might seem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Yeah, it's not that cut and dry. Especially taking into consideration again that she went home with the person that's been found not guilty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 It's been mentioned in the post above your's tbf. It's been brought up a few times. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Crooks Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Just perused a very interesting document online that highlights some real positives for Evans' innocence in this case. Read Ched redemption. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbo Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Would bet anything on there being chants of "he shags who he wants" if he starts playing again Went to a game in between the charge and the trial and heard SUFC fans singing that. Not many, but enough for it to be totally Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Just perused a very interesting document online that highlights some real positives for Evans' innocence in this case. Read Ched redemption. I love you sometimes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketsbaia Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 The Beautiful South's Paul Heaton has resigned as club patron tonight. It doesn't matter if he's as good as gold from now on, Evans was stupid as mud in the first place. Anyway, Sheff Utd will carry on regardless. .....I'll leave now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 The Beautiful South's Paul Heaton has resigned as club patron tonight. It doesn't matter if he's as good as gold from now on, Evans was stupid as mud in the first place. Anyway, Sheff Utd will carry on regardless. .....I'll leave now. It's good to see he's had a little time to think it over. He's had a little time to work it out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan_Taylor Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Would bet anything on there being chants of "he shags who he wants" if he starts playing again Went to a game in between the charge and the trial and heard SUFC fans singing that. Not many, but enough for it to be totally Grim, and it will 100% happen again if he plays. Unfortunately the majority of football fans are bell ends That and opposition fans will give it 'She said no Evans' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Don't suppose it really matters which club he signs for in the end. It could be Rotterdam or anywhere, Liverpool or Roma. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsted Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Some of you aren't taking this seriously. Attend! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 The Beautiful South are shit. There's my only contribution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuv Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 The Beautiful South are s***. There's my only contribution. Fuck you. Go Fuck off to Rotterdam or something. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuv Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 The Beautiful South are s***. There's my only contribution. f*** you. Go f*** off to Rotterdam or something. Yeah I'll grab my coat Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 There's rules about why you can't tattoo someone while they're pissed, why you can't get people to sign legal documents when they're intoxicated, why you can't get your gran to change her will when she's off her tits on anesthetic. Not being able to consent to things when you're intoxicated is a pretty well established concept, it's not special treatment for women. Ergo any sex with someone who is intoxicated (to any degree) is sex without consent and is therefore by definition rape should that person later decide they would not have made the same decision if sober. That is the logical conclusion of this line of argument, and I'd suggest that if that is the case, then there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of non-convicted rapists (of either sex) walking the streets of Britain today. Some of these rapists will be famous footballers, pop stars, actors, etc, others will be treating you at the doctors or in hospital, and many will even be teaching your children. Frightening. This is the actual stance of the law btw: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/ and this would seem to be the most relevant section to this case: The question of capacity to consent is particularly relevant when a complainant is intoxicated by alcohol or affected by drugs. In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. Further, they identified that capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, depends on the facts of the case. It would seem that the jury decided that at the point of getting into the taxi and going back to the hotel the woman was capable of offering consent, but subsequently lost that capacity later in the evening without further consumption of alcohol or drugs. Hang on, though, it wasn't just two people, one of whom was arseholed, having sex, was it? It was sex while his mate took part, too, and two others watched them. That gives a pretty good indication of the "dynamic" of the events. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Don't suppose it really matters which club he signs for in the end. It could be Rotterdam or anywhere, Liverpool or Roma. This is genius by the way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Don't suppose it really matters which club he signs for in the end. It could be Rotterdam or anywhere, Liverpool or Roma. This is genius by the way. Indeed it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Always assumed Paul Heaton was a Hull fan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Geordiesned Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Always assumed Paul Heaton was a Hull fan. Me too. Shared a pint with him in the Mainbrace pub in Hull 20 years ago as a student. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now