Ched Evans

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Bloody hell.

 

How does anybody know anything? Evidence. Including testimony, and who gives the most reliable evidence. And inferences. Such as if somebody is sneaking around a hotel at 4 o'clock-ish in the morning, then it can be fairly strongly inferred that they're up to no good.

 

Plus, apologies about the thick, but as you're still not grasping the difference between fucking somebody who's pissed, and somebody who has been accepted as being drunk to the point of Unconsciousness, you're rather living up to the billing, I'm afraid.

[deiseach]

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.

A 'complication'? Jesus Christ...

[Spy Bee]

if somebody is sneaking around a hotel at 4 o'clock-ish in the morning, then it can be fairly strongly inferred that they're up to no good.

Yes that's right, because nobody has ever been pissed in a hotel at 4am without having raped somebody have they? Maybe we should just introduce a blanket sentence whereby if anyone is found in a hotel at 4am they are automatically sentenced to five years?

 

 

A 'complication'? Jesus Christ...

Well, I may have slightly understated the problem, but I was focussing more on the fact that innocent men might be getting convicted for rape at fairly regular intervals.

[El Dangerous]

Firstly can I just say fuck off calling me thick!

Fair play, no need for name calling

 

 

 

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

If you were a slice of bread you'd be doorstep!

 

Go luck up rape in a law dictionary. Then look up consent.

[Spy Bee]

If you were a slice of bread you'd be doorstep!

I think that classes as name calling, but thanks for your contribution. It really elevated the debate.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

You're really not grasping it.

 

I didn't once say that him being pissed in a hotel was the sole, determinative factor. Or was the only evidence of rape.

 

It would have been looked at collectively with other things like his testimony, all the witnesses testimony and the jury then decided they believed her account.

 

Maybe even looked at alongside the fact that she was that pissed that she woke up in a pool of her own piss.

[Anubis]

Adam. You're having a 'mere here. Seriously.

[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.

Just to go back to this post. Two people involved both have rights; one not to be raped, and the other not to be convicted of rape when there is reasonable doubt.

 

So if he appeals and is successful am I suddenly right and you are all wrong?

[Spy Bee]

Adam. You're having a 'mere here. Seriously.

I don't think so. 

[El Dangerous]

I think that classes as name calling, but thanks for your contribution. It really elevated the debate.

I could have tried writing a sensible post about what the difference is between diddling an unconscious girl and having consensual sex whilst under the influence but it would clearly be lost on you. Unless of coarse you're taking up the devils advocate role on the wind up in which case, well played.

[Spy Bee]

I could have tried writing a sensible post about what the difference is between diddling an unconscious girl and having consensual sex whilst under the influence but it would clearly be lost on you. Unless of coarse you're taking up the devils advocate role on the wind up in which case, well played.

I am taking up the devil's advocate, but not on a wind up. I think there's a genuine issue here. As I have said above, two people have rights.

 

So right now he's been convicted. If his appeal comes back and they decide his conviction was unlawful because there was reasonable doubt, does that make you lot wums?

 

I on't know the intricate details of the case, but based on what seem like the fundamental facts - her having no recollection, him and his pal denying it, no forensics and no other evidence apart from what seems circumstantial, then I'd say the conviction seems a bit tenuous.

[deiseach]

Just to go back to this post. Two people involved both have rights; one not to be raped, and the other not to be convicted of rape when there is reasonable doubt.

So if he appeals and is successful am I suddenly right and you are all wrong?

Your definition of 'reasonable doubt' requires an alleged victim to demonstrate that they did not consent. In circumstances where there is no physical evidence and no corroboration, it would make it impossible to ever convict.

[Spy Bee]

Also well I'm on my soap box, how man is it that a man cannot be raped. IN an age where he could be drugged and tied up, then it's crazy really. I mean, it couldn't definitely happen against a man's consent.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

It's a disgusting approach, to prey on totally smashed girls.

 

I've verbally reasoned a friend of a friend away from such a girl before. 2 o'clock, lights on in the club, falling all over the place. She could barely speak. Then he goes up and starts hitting on her.

 

His "it's a guaranteed, dirty shag" attitude disgusted me, but mine, and others "it's a possible knock on the door from the police" advice won him round.

 

Cock block? Nah, more like doing the right thing.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

A man can be raped, but not by a woman.

[Spy Bee]

Your definition of 'reasonable doubt' requires an alleged victim to demonstrate that they did not consent. In circumstances where there is no physical evidence and no corroboration, it would make it impossible to ever convict.

I didn't invent the measure of reasonable doubt did I? It's a law of the land and all I am saying is that this kind of case is extremely complex. Are you willing to forsake somebody's right to only being found guilty if there is no reasonable doubt?

[Spy Bee]

A man can be raped, but not by a woman.

Not really the point I was making is it.

[Spy Bee]

It's a disgusting approach, to prey on totally smashed girls.

 

I've verbally reasoned a friend of a friend away from such a girl before. 2 o'clock, lights on in the club, falling all over the place. She could barely speak. Then he goes up and starts hitting on her.

 

His "it's a guaranteed, dirty shag" attitude disgusted me, but mine, and others "it's a possible knock on the door from the police" advice won him round.

 

Cock block? Nah, more like doing the right thing.

But if a girl does this to a lad, then it's just acceptable.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

How is forensic evidence relevant if the accused admits having sex with her?

 

It would neither prove or disprove anything.

[Spy Bee]

How is forensic evidence relevant if the accused admits having sex with her?

 

It would neither prove or disprove anything.

Well, it's not really. I was just listing a lack of evidence. It would be in cases of forced rape obviously.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

But if a girl does this to a lad, then it's just acceptable.

Not really. But it's not rape. And its largely blokes who do it.

[Spy Bee]

Not really. But it's not rape. And its largely blokes who do it.

Legally and morally?

 

Yes it is largely blokes that do it, but does that mean it's just acceptable for it to be ignored?

[deiseach]

I didn't invent the measure of reasonable doubt did I? It's a law of the land and all I am saying is that this kind of case is extremely complex. Are you willing to forsake somebody's right to only being found guilty if there is no reasonable doubt?

You are making up the measure of reasonable doubt. As things stand,the Court of Appeal has said that "We can see no possible basis which would justify us interfering with the verdict of the jury, which heard all the evidence and reflected on it after careful summing up by the judge." Legally there is no reasonable doubt. Of course, maybe Ched Evans is about to create some new case law. I hope not.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Legally and morally?

 

Yes it is largely blokes that do it, but does that mean it's just acceptable for it to be ignored?

It's not ignored. If it happened to a man, and he felt violated, I'm sure the police would fully investigate any complaint he made.

 

If you meant it's largely ignored by the men it happens to because they're so few in number and probably welcome the advances, then yes.

 

Plus, I think one largely obvious biological difference between a man and woman makes sex with an unconscious one from each sex two totally different prospects. Let's just say they're both not hard.

[Spy Bee]

You are making up the measure of reasonable doubt. As things stand,the Court of Appeal has said that "We can see no possible basis which would justify us interfering with the verdict of the jury, which heard all the evidence and reflected on it after careful summing up by the judge." Legally there is no reasonable doubt. Of course, maybe Ched Evans is about to create some new case law. I hope not.

Well, I'm not am I.

 

I haven't pretended to be an expert on the case, I am just saying from the little I know the case seems a bit dodge. What I am really saying is that both individual's rights should be protected, not just those of the woman.

 

It's not ignored. If it happened to a man, and he felt violated, I'm sure the police would fully investigate any complaint he made.

 

If you meant it's largely ignored by the men it happens to because they're so few in number and probably welcome the advances, then yes.

 

Plus, I think one largely obvious biological difference between a man and woman makes sex with an unconscious one from each sex two totally different prospects. Let's just say they're both not hard.

Haha, whatever. They bring it on themselves the men by wearing provocative clothing!

 

Anyway, this is Ched Evans signing off for the night. I have hotel shenanigans to attend to. Ta-ra!