Ched Evans - Not Guilty

[Guest firetotheworks]

 

LOL. The "real world" do me a favour. I've been out in the real world plenty mate. I don't need to have kids to know I don't agree with your viewpoint. I'm out anyway. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but I'm not wasting anymore time on it

 

Yeah, Im sure you would have fucking applauded your daughter for in an absolutely pissed state deciding to join two blokes in a hotel room at 4 AM , something good will come of that surely 

 

1. It being someone's daughter is irrelevant to us as a society. That's daytime TV rhetoric for idiots who don't know how to empathise without it being some sort of selfish scenario that would then impair their judgement with emotion anyway.

 

2. Going home with a lad, or lass for that matter doesn't automatically mean that you're going to have sex with them, it might be implied, but it absolutely goes without saying that it's not expected nor should going home with anyone by in any way, no matter how remote, vindication for someone to try and have sex with someone when it's been made clear that they don't want to. Honestly, I can't believe I've had to actually type that out to someone who I assume is a grown adult.

 

3. She didn't go to a hotel room with 2 men, she went with 1 man.

[Guest firetotheworks]

The main point, regardless of whether she gave consent or not, is whether she was in a sound state of mind in order to do so.

 

That to me is extremely dodgy and open to interpretation.

 

I've been wondering how the whole thing might have went down like:

 

Hi I woke up in a hotel room at 11.30 after drinking shitloads of booze and don't remember what happened. I was naked and I'd p*ssed the bed. I think I had sex as well but don't remember.

 

(Rape test later presumably confirms sex with 2 people and no signs of violence, no signs of roofies or whatever, the two people involved are identified)

 

Did you consent to have sex with the 2 guys? I don't know, I was very drunk and have zero recollection of the events whatsoever. I absolutely cannot say I did or did not consent to sex with either guy.

 

OK love I'm very sorry but the two guys involved state you consented to have sex with both of them, in the absence of any recollection from your side, and no signs of sexual violence or coercion I'm afraid there's very little we can do here.

 

 

...

Isn't that how it should have went? Surely.

 

Any sane being would argue this. But in todays PC climate the conclusion = " you cant remember consenting? Well thats rape then - you should report them etc".  You got drunk, went home with a guy and ended up having sex. Thats life.  Dont want to have drunken sex, simple 1. dont get that drunk and 2. Dont go home with a bloke.  If you go home with a guy he is going to attempt to shag you, you are free to say so and go home. If you are so drunk that are unable to object then obviously the guy SHOULD know better but in reality this rarely happens. Does it make him a bit of an arsehole if he is sober enough to see it? Yes, but locking him up for several years and labelling him as a sex offender is very very harsh. Im sure most of us would have experienced similar without never really having had that intention.

Pretty much this, if you consented to consume enough alcohol to put you in a situation where you can't remember then surely you are consenting to these sorts of possibilities.

 

Lets reverse the situation, what happens if a girl was more sober than a guy and the guy woke up with a big heffa next to him the next morning and runs like fuck. The guy is classed a dick for just running off yet no one blames the girl for taking advantage. How many bi-sexual or straight men get drunk and wake up with another guy next to them after getting so drunk?, who is to blame there, my guess is people will blame the straight guy for getting so drunk.

If you reverse the situation where a man is victim to the affects of alcohol no one says he was raped, if a girl does though then it's rape, double standards. Isn't it about time we started realising that women have just as much freedom to do what they want as men do and can be just as bad?

How the fuck is it possible to hold such dangerously right wing viewpoints?

My points was showing the difference in accountability between genders, and if we are to assume being intoxicated makes you in able to consent then it should be equal across both genders and surely someone has take responsibility for being so drunk?

 

If being intoxicated means you can no longer consent then surely a lot of people will be guilty of rape by having a drunken 1 night stand, or even by having a few drinks with their partner and then having sex? You can't say being intoxicated and then having sex is rape and only apply it to women on a night out, if your going to do that then it has to be applied to everyone.

"if you consented to consume enough alcohol to put you in a situation where you can't remember then surely you are consenting to these sorts of possibilities" 

 

You're views are incredibly rigid, like. I cannot even be bothered to explain the differences between the 2 scenarios though, they're obvious, but if a bloke believes he was 'raped' he has every right to report it and it'll be dealt in the same manner as if a female was to.

We have to be responsible for our actions even when drunk. If someone got drunk and drove and caused an accident then they are responsible, if someone dies then usually they go down for manslaughter because their intention wasn't to hurt someone but they took actions that resulted in it. In the eyes of the law they are still responsible, so if someone is responsible for killing someone when they are drunk then surely they are responsible for having sex?

 

Yes, the key word there is 'sex'...and not 'rape'

[Hanshithispantz]

Again, so rigid.

 

People have to be responsible with drink, it goes without saying, but if they happen to have too much the thought of them being fair game is just weird. If she believes she was raped then to just discount it as her "being so pissed she's essentially consented to this anyway" would be pretty sick, actually.

 

If there's no real evidence to prove that happened beyond reasonable doubt though then I don't think we can send a bloke down for it. It's a massive grey area, basically.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

There is a lot of moral ambiguity in contemporary sexual discourse but you need to make a distinction between that and whether or not its ok to have sex with someone who isn't in a position to give consent and or doesn't give consent.

 

 

The Jury were asked to decide whether she consented or whether Evan's had a reasonable belief in her consent.

[Si]

Going on the thought's of some lads in here the police should just breathalyse the victim then hoy her out in the street if it's positive. Mental.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Going on the thought's of some lads in here the police should just breathalyse the victim then hoy her out in the street if it's positive. Mental.

 

It truly is mental. It's absolutely revolting.

[ikri]

Does anyone who has read that link KI posted think the lad should have gone down for rape? Genuine question.

 

That link was the reasoning behind his appeal being rejected not his original conviction.  The original trial would have considered a lot more evidence than just what was appealed against.

[TheHoob]

Some of the posts here RJberger equating reporting rape to political correctness gone mad is my favourite.

[BlueStar]

The main point, regardless of whether she gave consent or not, is whether she was in a sound state of mind in order to do so.

 

That to me is extremely dodgy and open to interpretation.

 

I've been wondering how the whole thing might have went down like:

 

Hi I woke up in a hotel room at 11.30 after drinking shitloads of booze and don't remember what happened. I was naked and I'd p*ssed the bed. I think I had sex as well but don't remember.

 

(Rape test later presumably confirms sex with 2 people and no signs of violence, no signs of roofies or whatever, the two people involved are identified)

 

Did you consent to have sex with the 2 guys? I don't know, I was very drunk and have zero recollection of the events whatsoever. I absolutely cannot say I did or did not consent to sex with either guy.

 

OK love I'm very sorry but the two guys involved state you consented to have sex with both of them, in the absence of any recollection from your side, and no signs of sexual violence or coercion I'm afraid there's very little we can do here.

 

 

...

Isn't that how it should have went? Surely.

 

Any sane being would argue this. But in todays PC climate the conclusion = " you cant remember consenting? Well thats rape then - you should report them etc".  You got drunk, went home with a guy and ended up having sex. Thats life.  Dont want to have drunken sex, simple 1. dont get that drunk and 2. Dont go home with a bloke.  If you go home with a guy he is going to attempt to shag you, you are free to say so and go home. If you are so drunk that are unable to object then obviously the guy SHOULD know better but in reality this rarely happens. Does it make him a bit of an arsehole if he is sober enough to see it? Yes, but locking him up for several years and labelling him as a sex offender is very very harsh. Im sure most of us would have experienced similar without never really having had that intention.

Pretty much this, if you consented to consume enough alcohol to put you in a situation where you can't remember then surely you are consenting to these sorts of possibilities.

 

Lets reverse the situation, what happens if a girl was more sober than a guy and the guy woke up with a big heffa next to him the next morning and runs like fuck. The guy is classed a dick for just running off yet no one blames the girl for taking advantage. How many bi-sexual or straight men get drunk and wake up with another guy next to them after getting so drunk?, who is to blame there, my guess is people will blame the straight guy for getting so drunk.

If you reverse the situation where a man is victim to the affects of alcohol no one says he was raped, if a girl does though then it's rape, double standards. Isn't it about time we started realising that women have just as much freedom to do what they want as men do and can be just as bad?

How the fuck is it possible to hold such dangerously right wing viewpoints?

My points was showing the difference in accountability between genders, and if we are to assume being intoxicated makes you in able to consent then it should be equal across both genders and surely someone has take responsibility for being so drunk?

 

If being intoxicated means you can no longer consent then surely a lot of people will be guilty of rape by having a drunken 1 night stand, or even by having a few drinks with their partner and then having sex? You can't say being intoxicated and then having sex is rape and only apply it to women on a night out, if your going to do that then it has to be applied to everyone.

"if you consented to consume enough alcohol to put you in a situation where you can't remember then surely you are consenting to these sorts of possibilities" 

 

You're views are incredibly rigid, like. I cannot even be bothered to explain the differences between the 2 scenarios though, they're obvious, but if a bloke believes he was 'raped' he has every right to report it and it'll be dealt in the same manner as if a female was to.

We have to be responsible for our actions even when drunk. If someone got drunk and drove and caused an accident then they are responsible, if someone dies then usually they go down for manslaughter because their intention wasn't to hurt someone but they took actions that resulted in it. In the eyes of the law they are still responsible, so if someone is responsible for killing someone when they are drunk then surely they are responsible for having sex?

 

So if you're semi conscious on the metro with your phone in your hand and someone says "Can I have your phone mate" and you confusedly hand it over, presumably it's not robbery, you've just given someone a gift and later regretted it.  Your fault for being pissed. 

 

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.

[Guest firetotheworks]

BlueStar with the K.O

[Guest alijmitchell]

The main point, regardless of whether she gave consent or not, is whether she was in a sound state of mind in order to do so.

 

That to me is extremely dodgy and open to interpretation.

 

I've been wondering how the whole thing might have went down like:

 

Hi I woke up in a hotel room at 11.30 after drinking shitloads of booze and don't remember what happened. I was naked and I'd p*ssed the bed. I think I had sex as well but don't remember.

 

(Rape test later presumably confirms sex with 2 people and no signs of violence, no signs of roofies or whatever, the two people involved are identified)

 

Did you consent to have sex with the 2 guys? I don't know, I was very drunk and have zero recollection of the events whatsoever. I absolutely cannot say I did or did not consent to sex with either guy.

 

OK love I'm very sorry but the two guys involved state you consented to have sex with both of them, in the absence of any recollection from your side, and no signs of sexual violence or coercion I'm afraid there's very little we can do here.

 

 

...

Isn't that how it should have went? Surely.

 

Any sane being would argue this. But in todays PC climate the conclusion = " you cant remember consenting? Well thats rape then - you should report them etc".  You got drunk, went home with a guy and ended up having sex. Thats life.  Dont want to have drunken sex, simple 1. dont get that drunk and 2. Dont go home with a bloke.  If you go home with a guy he is going to attempt to shag you, you are free to say so and go home. If you are so drunk that are unable to object then obviously the guy SHOULD know better but in reality this rarely happens. Does it make him a bit of an arsehole if he is sober enough to see it? Yes, but locking him up for several years and labelling him as a sex offender is very very harsh. Im sure most of us would have experienced similar without never really having had that intention.

Pretty much this, if you consented to consume enough alcohol to put you in a situation where you can't remember then surely you are consenting to these sorts of possibilities.

 

Lets reverse the situation, what happens if a girl was more sober than a guy and the guy woke up with a big heffa next to him the next morning and runs like f***. The guy is classed a dick for just running off yet no one blames the girl for taking advantage. How many bi-sexual or straight men get drunk and wake up with another guy next to them after getting so drunk?, who is to blame there, my guess is people will blame the straight guy for getting so drunk.

If you reverse the situation where a man is victim to the affects of alcohol no one says he was raped, if a girl does though then it's rape, double standards. Isn't it about time we started realising that women have just as much freedom to do what they want as men do and can be just as bad?

How the f*** is it possible to hold such dangerously right wing viewpoints?

My points was showing the difference in accountability between genders, and if we are to assume being intoxicated makes you in able to consent then it should be equal across both genders and surely someone has take responsibility for being so drunk?

 

If being intoxicated means you can no longer consent then surely a lot of people will be guilty of rape by having a drunken 1 night stand, or even by having a few drinks with their partner and then having sex? You can't say being intoxicated and then having sex is rape and only apply it to women on a night out, if your going to do that then it has to be applied to everyone.

"if you consented to consume enough alcohol to put you in a situation where you can't remember then surely you are consenting to these sorts of possibilities" 

 

You're views are incredibly rigid, like. I cannot even be bothered to explain the differences between the 2 scenarios though, they're obvious, but if a bloke believes he was 'raped' he has every right to report it and it'll be dealt in the same manner as if a female was to.

We have to be responsible for our actions even when drunk. If someone got drunk and drove and caused an accident then they are responsible, if someone dies then usually they go down for manslaughter because their intention wasn't to hurt someone but they took actions that resulted in it. In the eyes of the law they are still responsible, so if someone is responsible for killing someone when they are drunk then surely they are responsible for having sex?

 

So if you're semi conscious on the metro with your phone in your hand and someone says "Can I have your phone mate" and you confusedly hand it over, presumably it's not robbery, you've just given someone a gift and later regretted it.  Your fault for being p*ssed. 

 

There's rules about why you can't tattoo someone while they're p*ssed, 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.

 

Finally some actual sense in here. Disgusting attitudes in this thread.

[mrmojorisin75]

this is where it starts and ends for me, how the fuck wasn't the appeal upheld man?

 

The other element of fresh evidence was expert evidence prepared by Professor John Birch, a consultant pharmacologist, a professor of biomedical science. His specialist field is psycho-pharmacology. Towards the end of his report he says:

 

"From the evidence of [the complainant] she appears to have suffered anterior-grade amnesia as a result of the high dose of alcohol which she consumed, and in particular that she consumed a substantial dose of alcohol during the last hour or so prior to leaving the nightclub. It appears from the evidence that her short-term memory was functioning at the time around the incident, but that the long-term record of that memory has been ablated by the high concentration of alcohol. There is, therefore, no memory record of those events and attempts to jog the memory may lead to confabulation. The fact that she has no memory of events does not mean that she was not able to participate in a meaningful way in events at that time, and I am quite clear that this includes the ability to make informed decisions in relation to consent. Acute alcohol intoxication may lead to substantial disinhibition and that may in itself lead to unwise judgments being made. But the fact that she does no longer remember having made a decision is a failure of the memory process and not of the decision-making process. Evidence of memory loss as a result of anterior-grade amnesia does not in itself prove that she lacked the capacity to consent."

 

he may have raped her, but there's simply no evidence to that effect

[Guest alijmitchell]

Does the burden of proof have to be 'there is no evidence to say that she didn't consent'? Shouldn't it be - 'there is no evidence to say that she did consent'?

[mozy]

This girl initiated wanting to go back to the hotel room with McDonald though. To compare it to Bluestar's analogy it's like someone quite pissed giving you their phone and saying have this.

 

As soon as the girl expressed a desire to go back to the hotel room of course she was going back there for sex man. 'I'm coming back to your hotel with you' was what she said, no prompting.

 

It's hard to be too sympathetic with Evans as what he did was the act of a sexual opportunist who took what he could get. I have serious doubts as to whether this should be labelled as rape, especially as the girl said yes, and was fully conscious and engaged throughout.

[Hanshithispantz]

Does the burden of proof have to be 'there is no evidence to say that she didn't consent'? Shouldn't it be - 'there is no evidence to say that she did consent'?

It should be neither, considering they're both pretty much impossible to prove either way.

[mozy]

Does the burden of proof have to be 'there is no evidence to say that she didn't consent'? Shouldn't it be - 'there is no evidence to say that she did consent'?

 

Well there's 2 witnesses that say she did consent, and 0 that say she did not. The girl herself does not know if she did or not.

[TheHoob]

That's bollocks like. Not a chance would someone who was so drunk they can't remember have the ability to make uninhabited judgements.

[TheHoob]

This girl initiated wanting to go back to the hotel room with McDonald though. To compare it to Bluestar's analogy it's like someone quite p*ssed giving you their phone and saying have this.

 

As soon as the girl expressed a desire to go back to the hotel room of course she was going back there for sex man. 'I'm coming back to your hotel with you' was what she said, no prompting.

 

It's hard to be too sympathetic with Evans as what he did was the act of a sexual opportunist who took what he could get. I have serious doubts as to whether this should be labelled as rape, especially as the girl said yes, and was fully conscious and engaged throughout.

 

Did she consent with Evans or the friend?

[mrmojorisin75]

Yeah but the whole thing it's unquantifiable; it's impossible to say either way what her decision making was like at that particular moment in time. I'm pretty sure it was fucking terrible (obviously) but alcohol consumption and it's effects vary so much from person to person it's impossible to pin it down enough to send some fucker to prison for RAPE like, fucking rape man.

 

From that appeal summary it really seems like the judge led the jury to make a massively subjective decision based on very little but their opinion. It should not be enough to convict someone in 2014 like, it just shouldn't. Again granted there may be more to the story that I'm/we're all unaware of.

[Guest alijmitchell]

Making the point in general that currently in rape cases it seems biased towards the 'victim' having to provide evidence of non-consensual sex, whereas, I believe we should be asking the perpetrator, where is the evidence the victim consented, and where is the evidence that the victim was capable of providing consent.

 

And please, asking to go to a hotel room does not mean someone has basically consented to sexual intercourse.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Does the burden of proof have to be 'there is no evidence to say that she didn't consent'? Shouldn't it be - 'there is no evidence to say that she did consent'?

 

Well there's 2 witnesses that say she did consent, and 0 that say she did not. The girl herself does not know if she did or not.

They're not witnesses (if you're referring to Evans and McDonald) although the night porter reported something about him hearing it as consensual through the door.

[mozy]

This girl initiated wanting to go back to the hotel room with McDonald though. To compare it to Bluestar's analogy it's like someone quite p*ssed giving you their phone and saying have this.

 

As soon as the girl expressed a desire to go back to the hotel room of course she was going back there for sex man. 'I'm coming back to your hotel with you' was what she said, no prompting.

 

It's hard to be too sympathetic with Evans as what he did was the act of a sexual opportunist who took what he could get. I have serious doubts as to whether this should be labelled as rape, especially as the girl said yes, and was fully conscious and engaged throughout.

 

Did she consent with Evans or the friend?

 

Both. I assume the reason McDonald (the friend) got off is because the girl initiated it, went back with him and gave a strong impression of being consensual. Whereas with Evans it is basically only his and McDonald's word that the girl consented.

[mozy]

Making the point in general that currently in rape cases it seems biased towards the 'victim' having to provide evidence of non-consensual sex, whereas, I believe we should be asking the perpetrator, where is the evidence the victim consented, and where is the evidence that the victim was capable of providing consent.

 

And please, asking to go to a hotel room does not mean someone has basically consented to sexual intercourse.

 

That's complete rubbish. Using that methodology you'd like to adopt a guilty until proven innocent system?

[Guest firetotheworks]

Has anyone ever had drunken sex and asked for consent? Am I wrong in thinking that not doing so unless they say no, or you use your intuition is the wrong way to go about it?

 

Seems like the ultimate mood killer.

[mozy]

Does the burden of proof have to be 'there is no evidence to say that she didn't consent'? Shouldn't it be - 'there is no evidence to say that she did consent'?

 

Well there's 2 witnesses that say she did consent, and 0 that say she did not. The girl herself does not know if she did or not.

They're not witnesses (if you're referring to Evans and McDonald) although the night porter reported something about him hearing it as consensual through the door.

 

Does McDonald not qualify as a witness in Evans' trial? My legal knowledge isn't brilliant, if not then one witness which was the night porter.