Ched Evans Jailed...
- Thread starter rich75
- Start date
hughy
I'm SUPER cereal.
- Nov 18, 2007
- 31,915
- 57,116
This. There is no explanation as to why anywhere.
dontcallme
SC Supporter
- Mar 18, 2005
- 34,276
- 83,453
Maybe I've read it wrong but it seems he got convicted on the basis that she was too intoxicated to consent. She was sober enough to consent to one but not the other?
dontcallme
SC Supporter
- Mar 18, 2005
- 34,276
- 83,453
Poor girl,
She goes out and gets drunk like so many of us do. she gets raped by two footballers while others cheer them on and then gets accused of being a slag when she reports the crime.
She goes out and gets drunk like so many of us do. she gets raped by two footballers while others cheer them on and then gets accused of being a slag when she reports the crime.
thinktank
Hmmm...
- Sep 28, 2004
- 45,893
- 68,893
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17781842
"The judge said the sentence took into account that there had been no force involved and the complainant received no injuries.
He also said the complainant was not "targeted" and the attack had not been "premeditated"."
This case is warped and the judge needs to hang up his wig.
There are so many grey areas it's not even a joke.
the watson
COYSC
- Apr 21, 2007
- 558
- 745
What's the grey area? No consent = rape
mpickard2087
Patient Zero
- Jun 13, 2008
- 21,889
- 32,561
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17781842
So going from that:
- Girl is 'very drunk', according to witnesses/CCTV.
- Mcdonald take girl back to room, texts Evans to say he has pulled, Evans goes over there.
- Evans goes in room and watches, pals stand outside window. girl gets asked if Evans can join in too, she says yes apparently.
I'm confused how it is ok for McDonald to have sex with her but not Evans? The girl says that she cant remember how she ended up in the hotel room or what happened there. I mean surely its a case of either you convict both of them for taking advantage of her or neither of them. I cant see how you can reach a conclusion of only convicting one of them.
So going from that:
- Girl is 'very drunk', according to witnesses/CCTV.
- Mcdonald take girl back to room, texts Evans to say he has pulled, Evans goes over there.
- Evans goes in room and watches, pals stand outside window. girl gets asked if Evans can join in too, she says yes apparently.
I'm confused how it is ok for McDonald to have sex with her but not Evans? The girl says that she cant remember how she ended up in the hotel room or what happened there. I mean surely its a case of either you convict both of them for taking advantage of her or neither of them. I cant see how you can reach a conclusion of only convicting one of them.
thinktank
Hmmm...
- Sep 28, 2004
- 45,893
- 68,893
The issue was not consent, as it appears that that was given.
The prosecution obviously took the position that the girl was not in a fit state to make that decision with normal capacity to reason. therefore the guy should have realized this and not had sex with the girl who was telling him to fuck her...!
'Grey' isn't even the word for where this leads logically.
I think everyone generally accepts that if a woman says no it means no, but now, apparently, if she says yes, it means no depending on her level of intoxication! Craziness!!
What if the guy is just as intoxicated as the girl - who says yes - and cannot gauge how pissed he is in relation to her or how pissed they both are in relation to being sober??
I could go on...there is a whole list of variables I could write that make this truly ridiculous.
This is a crock of shite and a travesty of justice.
If someone is raped straight-up then the rapist should get what's coming, but this is just shit-tits bonkers.
- Thread starter
- #13
I think perhaps everyone needs to accept that they weren't in court and all the facts are perhaps not relayed via the media. I agree it seems odd that the other guy didn't get done for it as well but then I didn't hear the evidence.. and neither did anyone else.
- Thread starter
- #14
I'm assuming, as I wasn't in court, that if the girl claims she has no idea how she wound up in a hotel room come the morning, then she probably has no idea if she said yes or not to have sex. It's been accepted for a fairly long while that if someone isn't in a fit state to consent then it's considered rape and quite rightly. Admittedly it becomes something of a grey area in terms of at what point not being in a fit state to consent occurs but I would of thought on some occasions it's bleeding obvious as well. Not having heard any of the evidence I couldn't possibly say whether in this case it was obvious or not. The only odd thing about this case is the conviction of one and not the other.
thinktank
Hmmm...
- Sep 28, 2004
- 45,893
- 68,893
This case is all about consent. Enough of the facts have been released to point to this case being balanced on how that consent was established. And enough has been released to indicate the conditions under which that consent was given was the central pillar of the prosecution's case.
Don't need to be a fly on the wall in court to have solid opinion on this...enough details are out to warrant a hell of a lot of justified questions.
- Thread starter
- #16
Sure, but the general consensus seem to be that if she gave consent ( which I've not seen her admit to, only that the two men claim she gave it ) , she wasn't in a fit state to know what she was doing. According to the law it's rape if she wasn't in a fit state to give consent. Like I said , the only odd thing would be the conviction of one and not the other which would suggest to me that we haven't heard all the facts.
thinktank
Hmmm...
- Sep 28, 2004
- 45,893
- 68,893
Oh, you weren't in court?? Strange.
You whole post is 'grey'.
The judge accepted she had in fact said 'yes', because...
"The judge said the sentence took into account that there had been no force involved and the complainant received no injuries.
He also said the complainant was not "targeted" and the attack had not been "premeditated"."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17781842
Just on the info released alone, this case is odd on many fronts.
If I was that guy I would ditch his defense team for the appeal, they suck.
Anyway, off to bed, gonna need all my energy to overcome our defeat later today...
- Thread starter
- #18
That's in no way the same thing, he accepted there was no force involved, he didn't accept that she said yes whilst knowing what she was saying. That's the entire basis for the conviction. Given she hasn't agreed she said yes ( at least not form the media reports ) the ruling that there was no force involved could equally mean she was flat out unconscious. Not much force needed to fuck an unconscious body is there? Targeting and premeditation have no bearing on anything other than mitigation in terms of sentencing.
Dundalk_Spur
The only Spur in the village
- Jul 17, 2008
- 4,960
- 7,695
Cases like this are tough as it is basically one persons word against the other.
This is further muddied by the addition of large quantities of alcohol.
If she gave consent to the other guy, then how much more alcohol did she consume between then and when Evans was on the scene? However, it is stated that she has said she has no memory of how she got to them room. If that is the case how can she remember who she gave consent too, and how can it be decided when she said yes to one she was sober enough but too drunk for evans??
It seems the reasoning for the judgement is leaving a hole in it big enough to drive a lorry through it. Released pretty quickly on appeal i think.
This is further muddied by the addition of large quantities of alcohol.
If she gave consent to the other guy, then how much more alcohol did she consume between then and when Evans was on the scene? However, it is stated that she has said she has no memory of how she got to them room. If that is the case how can she remember who she gave consent too, and how can it be decided when she said yes to one she was sober enough but too drunk for evans??
It seems the reasoning for the judgement is leaving a hole in it big enough to drive a lorry through it. Released pretty quickly on appeal i think.
hellava_tough
Well-Known Member
- Apr 21, 2005
- 9,429
- 12,383
I thought that it had been (notoriously) established in law that "Drunken consent is still consent"
I think that was a part of the Ken Clarke controvesy last year, when he was interviewed by a journalist on this subject
What I don't understand is that there were 4 defence witnesses present and only 1 prosecution witness present (the victim), yet the defence still couldn't get Evans off....especially since there weren't any physical injuries, etc
