Ched Evans

[ratcatcher]

Then the accused has to rebut that presumption to show that there was consent, and innocence.

 

He didn't.

 

His then legal team didnt. He's got a new legal team handling the appeal.

 

Doesnt mean they will be any more successful though.

[Boss]

Just theoretically, what if she was wearing a "do me even if I'm asleep" t-shirt that she bought down the market for a joke one Saturday afternoon with her mates?

 

He'd get off but only if he was wearing a "the man, the legend" t shirt.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

We've all shagged a dirty bitch and fucked off before morning. Does he have to prove that she consented, or is the burden of proof on showing that she didn't?

 

I've been that drunk I couldn't remember having sex with the ex, but I had. It doesn't mean she raped me.

 

Horrible case all round, and he doesn't come out of this looking good even if his sentence is overturned.

Sorry, you're just being a sexist knob now.

 

There's a bit of difference between getting someone pissed, lowering their inhibitions, a bit of Dutch courage, maybe so she'll let you do her arse or staff on her face, something she wouldn't do when sober, and on the other hand, having sex with somebody who is that out of it that's akin to having sex with someone who is drugged into a soporific state or asleep/unconscious.

 

And, as has been explained a few times now, the jury obviously believed her account, they believed she was unconscious, so the law in those circumstances presumes a lack of consent, so, yes, Evans did have to prove otherwise.

[El Dangerous]

Tragically, that Chedevans.com site was set up by his girlfriend who he had cheated on when doing a rape on the girl. A few of his mates got fucked for threatening the girl on twitter as well.

[TrimmTrabb]

I have been completely pissed before, but have been held conversations, gone to chipper and had sex - but the next day had no recollection of what I've said, being in the chipper or getting laid. 

 

If on one of these such nights I went back to a hotel, tried it on and then rode one bird and then the next day it turned out I had sex with the other bird too then I don't see how I could reasonably accuse her of rape even if I didn't know what happened. Funny that this is a case that has been jumped on by feminists but it kind of highlights a certain sexism in the law which assumes the man as the one who has all the agency. It's hard to comment on the particulars of a case without knowing the details but I have a feeling Ched Evans (regardless of whether he did wrong that night) is the victim of an interpretation of rape that is too protective of the woman.

 

This is a different one to the one raised in this case but is one I've thought about having read articles on the Evans thing. It may be completely politically incorrect to say but is it not very common for men to have to 'persuade' women to have sex whether its because the women doesn't want to appear 'easy' or genuinely for moral reasons have sex - but you can tell that in about 15 minutes you'll be having sex? Similarly me and my friends are noticing women asking for more hair pulling/rough sex these days (without prior encouragement) in one night stands but everything you read in the guardian etc talks about how men are imposing this stuff on women?

 

I have done quite a few feminists courses in college and feel I have quite a good grasp of feminism and understand the majority of sexual violence goes unpunished and mainstream society is extremely misogynistic but I do think a lot of energy of feminist cause is lost campagining about petty/irrelevant celebrity bullshit and as a movement it can be quite dishonest about real life interactions between men and women.

[Spy Bee]

Sorry, you're just being a sexist knob now.

 

And, as has been explained a few times now, the jury obviously believed her account, they believed she was unconscious, so the law in those circumstances presumes a lack of consent, so, yes, Evans did have to prove otherwise.

No need for the insults, try playing the ball not the man.

 

Her account? Her account was that she didn't remember? She might have been totally cognisant at the time, but have no recollection afterwards. 

 

I'm not saying he acted impeccably, I've actually said the opposite, but I don't know how anyone can say beyond all reasonable doubt that she didn't consent. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

No, your right, rape requires non consensual penetration of an orifice, with a penis so you wouldn't be raped if a woman had sex with you without your consent.

 

Some of the perceptions of women and rape in here are shocking (deliberately so, I think, trolling) with it appearing that some only think it's rape if the woman puts up a fight or screams no.

[Boss]

We've all shagged a dirty bitch and fucked off before morning. Does he have to prove that she consented, or is the burden of proof on showing that she didn't?

 

I've been that drunk I couldn't remember having sex with the ex, but I had. It doesn't mean she raped me.

 

Horrible case all round, and he doesn't come out of this looking good even if his sentence is overturned.

 

The Evan's defence would try to prove she consented, the prosecution would be set out to prove she didn't, but ultimately it's his actions leading up too and after the event that indicate he knew he was doing something wrong, and by knowing he was doing something wrong, at the very least it imply's some degree of guilt. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

No need for the insults, try playing the ball not the man.

 

Her account? Her account was that she didn't remember? She might have been totally cognisant at the time, but have no recollection afterwards.

 

I'm not saying he acted impeccably, I've actually said the opposite, but I don't know how anyone can say beyond all reasonable doubt that she didn't consent.

The law. Section 56 of the 2003 Sexual Offences Act says she doesn't consent.

 

 

 

ential presumptions about consent

 

(1)If in proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it is proved—

 

(a)that the defendant did the relevant act,

 

(b)that any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2) existed, and

 

©that the defendant knew that those circumstances existed,

 

the complainant is to be taken not to have consented to the relevant act unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he consented, and the defendant is to be taken not to have reasonably believed that the complainant consented unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it.

(2)The circumstances are that—

 

(a)any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, using violence against the complainant or causing the complainant to fear that immediate violence would be used against him;

 

(b)any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, causing the complainant to fear that violence was being used, or that immediate violence would be used, against another person;

 

©the complainant was, and the defendant was not, unlawfully detained at the time of the relevant act;

 

(d)the complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act;

 

(e)because of the complainant’s physical disability, the complainant would not have been able at the time of the relevant act to communicate to the defendant whether the complainant consented;

 

(f)any person had administered to or caused to be taken by the complainant, without the complainant’s consent, a substance which, having regard to when it was administered or taken, was capable of causing or enabling the complainant to be stupefied or overpowered at the time of the relevant act.

 

(3)In subsection (2)(a) and (b), the reference to the time immediately before the relevant act began is, in the case of an act which is one of a continuous series of sexual activities, a reference to the time immediately before the first sexual activity began.

[Spy Bee]

Which bit are you referring to?

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

All of it. With s57, ss 2 (d) being particularly relevant.

[Spy Bee]

No, your right, rape requires non consensual penetration of an orifice, with a penis so you wouldn't be raped if a woman had sex with you without your consent.

 

Some of the perceptions of women and rape in here are shocking (deliberately so, I think, trolling) with it appearing that some only think it's rape if the woman puts up a fight or screams no.

If that is aimed at me you can go and fuck yourself.

 

I'm saying I don't think you can say beyond a reasonable doubt that she didn't consent. I think his behaviour is bad. It's probably habitually bad because as a professional footballer he was probably getting to nail just about anything he wanted to. But him being a cunt does not make him a rapist.

[Spy Bee]

All of it.

Well I am afraid you are going to have to be more specific, because as far as I can see you're wrong.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Well I am afraid you are going to have to be more specific, because as far as I can see you're wrong.

I have been, see my edit.

 

I'm right. That section is straight forward. I've already explained it, so you can read back as I can't be arsed repeating myself.

[El Dangerous]

Yeah, perversely some people seem to think of rape as an exclusively violent thing. It's about consent, she didn't give it. The evidence clearly shows she didn't give it otherwise they wouldn't have convicted him. I'm no feminist but that line about. "An interpretation of rape that's too protective of the woman" is pretty abhorrent. I'd also suggest that people should probably hold back on the nipple clamps and choking until they're on first name terms at least. Take no chances!

[deiseach]

I'm saying I don't think you can say beyond a reasonable doubt that she didn't consent. I think his behaviour is bad. It's probably habitually bad because as a professional footballer he was probably getting to nail just about anything he wanted to. But him being a cunt does not make him a rapist.

Unconscious women have to prove they didn't consent (edited), otherwise it can't be rape?

[Spy Bee]

I have been, see my edit.

 

I'm right. That section is straight forward. I've already explained it, so you can read back as I can't be arsed repeating myself.

How do you know she didn't consent?

[Boss]

Hypothetically if you had some fat heffer going round scrunching roofies and viagra into lad's pints and then taking them off to bounce on them, what would the courts say about that? 

[Spy Bee]

Unconscious women have to prove they didn't consent (edited), otherwise it can't be rape?

Was she unconscious?

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Hypothetically if you had some fat heffer going round scrunching roofies and viagra into lad's pints and then taking them off to bounce on them, what would the courts say about that?

Sexual assault.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

How do you know she didn't consent?

I think you're a bit too thick to grasp it, so I'll let you figure it out yourself.

 

I'll give you a few clues. She's been accepted as being unconscious. Her evidence hasn't been doubted by a jury. The law says if she's unconscious, there's no consent (not me, the law, which governs us all). But the law is a bit nice. It gives the accused a second bite of the cherry to prove that, although she was accepted as being unconscious/monged/out of it, there was consent on her behalf to the Sexual intercourse.

 

He failed to convince a jury of this, despite a judge giving the jury full and proper directions, as shown when his first application for leave to appeal was rejected.

 

Hope this helps.

[Anubis]

Innocent until proven guilty.

 

I think he's been a vile, horrible cunt, but I couldn't say beyond all reasonable doubt that she had not given consent. I haven't read all the court transcripts, but the details look pretty plain. 

 

He's been proven guilty. Keep up, Adam.

[deiseach]

Was she unconscious?

The jury believed she was. And even it can't be proven that she was, your insistence that the onus is on the alleged victim to prove that they didn't consent is a charter to rape unconscious women with impunity.

[Spy Bee]

I think you're a bit too thick to grasp it, so I'll let you figure it out yourself.

 

I'll give you a few clues. She's been accepted as being unconscious. Her evidence hasn't been doubted by a jury. The law says if she's unconscious, there's no consent (not me, the law, which governs us all). But the law is a bit nice. It gives the accused a second bite of the cherry to prove that, although she was accepted as being unconscious/monged/out of it, there was consent on her behalf to the Sexual intercourse.

 

He failed to convince a jury of this, despite a judge giving the jury full and proper directions, as shown when his first application for leave to appeal was rejected.

 

Hope this helps.

Firstly can I just say fuck off calling me thick!

 

Secondly, I just asked is she was unconscious. If she was, how do they know she was?

 

If a lad gets pissed and has sex with a girl he really wouldn't do sober, then he's just made a mistake. If a woman gets pissed and has sex with a lad who she really wouldn't do sober, then it's rape?

 

That seems like a glaring double standard to me. In fact, I'm reporting a few ugly bitches for rape tomorrow.

[Spy Bee]

The jury believed she was. And even it can't be proven that she was, your insistence that the onus is on the alleged victim to prove that they didn't consent is a charter to rape unconscious women with impunity.

Well aye, and that's obviously a complication. But there is the counter argument, that people will be getting jailed for rape because a woman can't remember the night before. Some might say that's fine and men shouldn't be sleeping with drunk women. I would say that's 1) a double standard, and 2) completely unrealistic.