Ched Evans

[cornish mackem]

He would still be faster than Steven taylor even with the ball and chain

Having sex with anyone without explicit consent is rape.

At the very, very least, Evans walked into a situation where it was unclear where real consent was given. At worst, the whole thing was planned as an exercise to pick up any extremely drunk girl and rape her.

I am guessing most of us are guilty of this. I'm not saying it's right but I've woken up next to someone on more than one occasion and neither had full recollection of what really happened.

 

[andymcnish]

And who on earth thinks drink driving is 'as bad' as rape ffs?

I'm not so sure he will be able to ply his trade that easily to be honest. Convicted and non-apolegetic rapist is a pretty toxic brand...

 

[Dogbark]

The definition of drunk:
"intoxicated with alcohol to the extent of losing control over normal physical and mental functions."
So if someone has lost control over normal physical and mental functions, please tell me how they can give consent?

Having sex with anyone without explicit consent is rape.

At the very, very least, Evans walked into a situation where it was unclear where real consent was given. At worst, the whole thing was planned as an exercise to pick up any extremely drunk girl and rape her.

For both of you - Drunken consent, still counts as consent.

I'm not actually saying she did consent of course

 

[not spavin]

He would still be faster than Steven taylor even with the ball and chain


I am guessing most of us are guilty of this. I'm not saying it's right but I've woken up next to someone on more than one occasion and neither had full recollection of what really happened.

I am guessing that none of us have been guilty of telling a mate to book a hotel room, pick up a girl who can barely stand up, take her back then text me when you've fucked her.

To repeat, Evans was not found guilty of getting drunk with a girl then having sex.

For both of you - Drunken consent, still counts as consent.

I'm not actually saying she did consent of course

Drunken consent can count as consent. An important distinction.

 

[andymcnish]

I just don't understand why there are so many apologists on this board for this convicted scroat trying to second guess the jury...

And, no, most of us have never acted like Evans I hope. This isn't two pissed people copping off and having sex. Not remotely.

 

[naughtynose]

They'll be signing Titus next

 

[Dogbark]

Drunken consent can count as consent. An important distinction.

I suppose in theory it would be possible to be guilty. Have you got any links to any cases were the defended was found guilty after drunken consent was given?

 

[not spavin]

I suppose in theory it would be possible to be guilty. Have you got any links to any cases were the defended was found guilty after drunken consent was given?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

In this case it was ruled that consent wasn't given.

This is a case where drunken consent was accepted as being credible consent.

 

[Flash Gordon]

And yet the jury convicted him, so there can't have been that much doubt raised can there?

This isn't some sort of complex fraud trial too complicated for juries to follow.

The jury were sure that:
A) she was too far gone to give consent, and
B) Evans either knew that or should have known that.

And that's rape.

A jury will have looked into the eyes of Evans and the girl as they gave their evidence. We don't have that opportunity, so I'm happy to go with their view on whether or not he is a liar and a rapist...

Or you could take the alternative view that roasting pissed young girls in front of onlookers is a high risk activity if you go before a jury on a rape charge apparently. Who would have thought it?

Their behaviour is unquestionably reprehensible from a moral point of view, but I don't see how that or the fact that a jury "looked into their eyes" should have any outcome on the verdict.

This woman was deemed to be only 2.5 times over the legal drink/drive limit, there's no evidence that her drink was spiked and no evidence of any struggle. There's also cctv footage showing that she was able and willing to go back to the room. Inside the room, no-one really knows what happened except those 3 people.

So if Evans went back and this girl was verbally and physically willing, then how is he supposed to know that she is too drunk and that her saying yes is not consent?

Second of all, if Clayton spent more time with her and she never had a drink after leaving with him, then surely he should have been more aware that she wasn't in a fit state to consent. So how was he found not guilty?

The girl says she remebers nothing and the 2 men say she consented. The levels of intoxication that they can prove are not in line with someone who was drunk enough to suffer total memory loss. I can't see how any of the main points suggest anything other than her word against theirs.

I'm not saying that Evans is innocent or that he's a nice guy, but there's a lot more doubt and shades of grey to this case than a rapist who has forced a woman against her will.

 

[Deleted member 22590]

I think the thing that clouds the issue was how the jury was able to convict one but not the other.

Mentioned, a few times now that the difference was the jury accepted the acquitted lad argued that he believed he had consent given she went back with him. It wasn't successfully proved that he did not believe she consented.
Evans, arriving later in response to a text that read " I've got a girl", raped her and left via a fire exit. He unsuccessfully argued he believed she consented to him having sex with her.

 

[andymcnish]

There is either consent or not.
If the women is too drunk or drugged (as seems more likely here) to give proper consent then there is no question of 'drunken consent' being given...
The only question then is whether the guy had a genuine belief that consent had been given (and not giving a toss about whether it's been given or not does not count)

Their behaviour is unquestionably reprehensible from a moral point of view, but I don't see how that or the fact that a jury "looked into their eyes" should have any outcome on the verdict.

Really? When it comes down to judging whether or not Evans genuinely believed the girl had consented I would imagine it's absolutely crucial...

 

[flusheding]

There is either consent or not.
If the women is too drunk or drugged (as seems more likely here) to give proper consent then there is no question of 'drunken consent' being given...
The only question then is whether the guy had a genuine belief that consent had been given (and not giving a toss about whether it's been given or not does not count)

but how do you determine too drunk? Unless you have a blood alcohol meter on you to take a breathaliser test and compare the result to a "Yes/No Chart" what one person thinks is a drunk person saying "yeah, I'll have sex with you" is 'acceptable' is another person's "how dare you go any where near that person as they've drank alcohol"

 

[Dogbark]

I'm not sure what you're asking.

In this case it was ruled that consent wasn't given.

This is a case where drunken consent was accepted as being credible consent.

Aye, that's because the jury didn't believe his claim, that she hadn't given consent.

I was after a link were drunken consent wasn't accepted

 

[Beer_Monkey]

Mentioned, a few times now that the difference was the jury accepted the acquitted lad argued that he believed he had consent given she went back with him. It wasn't successfully proved that he did not believe she consented.
Evans, arriving later in response to a text that read " I've got a girl", raped her and left via a fire exit. He unsuccessfully argued he believed she consented to him having sex with her.

That doesn't look too good for him, mind.

 

[Flash Gordon]

There is either consent or not.
If the women is too drunk or drugged (as seems more likely here) to give proper consent then there is no question of 'drunken consent' being given...
The only question then is whether the guy had a genuine belief that consent had been given (and not giving a toss about whether it's been given or not does not count)



Really? When it comes down to judging whether or not Evans genuinely believed the girl had consented I would imagine it's absolutely crucial...

I was of the belief that the criminal justice system was based on facts. A jury member looking into Evans' eyes and deciding that they don't believe him (without evidence proving otherwise) isn't good enough for me.

Again your point about her being drugged is speculation as it wasn't proven. It's every bit as outrageous as those suggesting that the girl was a slag looking for a pay day.

Surely everyone is entitled to a fair trial based on evidence?

 

[Lonz]

Has anyone mentioned that Jamie Oliver has hired a convicted peadophile in one of his restaurants the other day? Stating he's done his time.

 

[andymcnish]

So you are second guessing the judge, the jury, the appeal court judge who refused the appeal and the 3 judge appeals panel of judges who confirmed the appeal refusal?
Impressive.

There is video of the girl being falling over drunk (or otherwise intoxicated). She woke up alone in a strange hotel room having pissed herself and according to herself having no memory of the hotel from the night before.

There is plenty of evidence that she was too intoxicated to give proper consent and given her relatively moderate alcohol consumption she believed her drink had been spiked. It's certainly open to the jury to draw that conclusion even if they don't know who spiked her drinks. But it doesn't really matter how she came to be out of it provided it was open on t h e evidence for the jury to decide she was. Which it clearly did.

If she was too intoxicated, then it's just a question of whether Evans genuinely believed she did consent. If he didn't stop to think about it it's rape. He will have given oral evidence of both what he said she said and of his state of mind. The jury's assessment of his credibility in the witness box is crucial (as it was in the case of the girl telling the truth about her lack of memory). They obviously decided he was a lying toerag. It's the entire point of the jury system to have them assess that credibility and I have no reason to doubt they made the right decision here. And nor have you.

 

[Ricci's Special Kebabs]

Has anyone mentioned that Jamie Oliver has hired a convicted peadophile in one of his restaurants the other day? Stating he's done his time.

He's only allowed to cook Poussin apparently.

 

[walesie]

And who on earth thinks drink driving is 'as bad' as rape ffs?

I'm not so sure he will be able to ply his trade that easily to be honest. Convicted and non-apolegetic rapist is a pretty toxic brand...

I wonder if this is why Sheff Utd haven't made an announcement yet? They'll have to go some way to squaring this off with their sponsors.

 

[Dogbark]

So you are second guessing the judge, the jury, the appeal court judge who refused the appeal and the 3 judge appeals panel of judges who confirmed the appeal refusal?
Impressive.

There is video of the girl being falling over drunk (or otherwise intoxicated). She woke up alone in a strange hotel room having pissed herself and according to herself having no memory of the hotel from the night before.

There is plenty of evidence that she was too intoxicated to give proper consent and given her relatively moderate alcohol consumption she believed her drink had been spiked. It's certainly open to the jury to draw that conclusion even if they don't know who spiked her drinks. But it doesn't really matter how she came to be out of it provided it was open on t h e evidence for the jury to decide she was. Which it clearly did.

If she was too intoxicated, then it's just a question of whether Evans genuinely believed she did consent. If he didn't stop to think about it it's rape. He will have given oral evidence of both what he said she said and of his state of mind. The jury's assessment of his credibility in the witness box is crucial (as it was in the case of the girl telling the truth about her lack of memory). They obviously decided he was a lying toerag. It's the entire point of the jury system to have them assess that credibility and I have no reason to doubt they made the right decision here. And nor have you.

There isn't though.
2.5 times the drink driving limit at 4am, doesn't convince me that she was incapable of giving consent.