TRL Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 All a bit sad really, I think there may come a time when people will need to get written proof and a text to prove they have not raped a partner or someone they have met. I am saying this with no bearing to Evans case, but to rape laws in general. As this seems the way the law is going, and this goes both ways for both men and women. If you cannot prove sex was consensual then you are a rapist is what it looks like a lot of people here are saying How do you prove that without documented proof. I guess I have raped the other half many times judging by the proof needed in the eyes of the law! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Okay, so if I, as a man, get really drunk this Friday night - too drunk to consent to sex - and end up going home with a girl and have sex have I been raped? If you're too drunk to consent to that sex, then yes - of course you have. If anyone has sex with you at any time and you've not consented to that, or were not capable of dong so, then you've been raped. It's not a particularly complicated concept. Let's switch this question though, as I think from the way you've phrased it, you're picturing the sex as an act you'd enjoy. Forgive me if I'm assuming from the fact that you've talked about sex with a girl that you're heterosexual.. Suppose on Friday you go out, get too drunk to be in control of what you were doing (perhaps even, as she claims, so drunk you had your drink spiked), and then you went home with a girl. You had sex with her - you can't remember for sure the following day if you consented or not. Shortly after that, a man she lives with comes into the room and he has sex with you too. You know the sex happened but you're too drunk to be sure whether you consented to sex with him or not. Now - would you feel you'd been raped? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty Swallocks Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 All this talk of 'he's served his sentence' is incorrect. He's been released from jail but must serve the remainder of his sentence on licence. That along with his lack of remorse means I'm glad we wouldnt touch him with a barge pole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Okay, so if I, as a man, get really drunk this Friday night - too drunk to consent to sex - and end up going home with a girl and have sex have I been raped? Sorry mods You sir are one of life's assholes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityexile Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 So, there are basically three possibilities here... 1) He raped her and is guilty. He has served his time but needs to acknolwedge his crime and show some remorse so that he can be properly rehabilitated back into society. As I've mentioned early if he had taken this approach I think he would be a Sheff Utd player by now and this whole thing would have calmed down. 2) He raped her and is guilty but won't acknowledge his crime or show remorse and is therefore being ridiculed for this and is finding it very hard to find a club to sign him because of this. 3) He didn't rape her, it was consensual and he is innocent. He will naturally fight/appeal his conviction to clear his name. As with number 2, until such time comes that he is cleared he is going to be ridiculed for his lack of remorse and will find it very hard to find a club to sign him. Ched Evans has missed the boat as far as option 1 goes which leaves us in this extremely messy grey area somewhere between options 2 and 3. Everyone has their own opinions but only he really knows the truth of what happened. He's only got himself to blame and there's a very good chance he's ruined his professional football career. A good post, but there is an important 4th option here. This is not a black and white area like say drink driving, where there is a measurable line which if you are over you are over, end of. It requires judgement, and as such we apply in theory a very high threshold for that, 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The other option therefore is that he genuinely feels he is innocent, and that she did consent, and he will continue to believe that. It is possible that he can feel this, but still be guilty, as indeed the jury found. He may not know the 'truth of what happened' if he cannot get his head around what consitutes consent. The main facts do not seem hugely disputed, but he is getting close, as others are here, to actually saying 'given these facts, it should not be rape'. But it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Isewater Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 All this talk of 'he's served his sentence' is incorrect. He's been released from jail but must serve the remainder of his sentence on licence. That along with his lack of remorse means I'm glad we wouldnt touch him with a barge pole. I think touching someone with a barge pole is an offence . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 I'm out now anyway, I've made my view. I lose all faith in our society when the pitchfork mob come out and believe anything that they're spoonfed, and distort 'facts' to suit their argument. It's a very sketchy case, and as an open-minded person I am reserving judgement, particularly given a footballers' susceptibility to falling foul of a mentalist of a woman (I'm not insinuating that about her, I don't know anything about her). I also think to label him as a convicted rapist (which he technically is yes) and tarnish him with everything that comes with it is dangerous given that in my opinion 95% of rapists have actually committed far worse crimes than he did, even if he is genuinely guilty. I can understand why a business wouldn't want to employ him but he has every right to be a pro footballer again if a club wants to take him on, and rightly so. I fail to see how this case is sketchy? A woman is drunk to the point that she can not remember what actually took place - she did not give any account of the sex that took place, it was the defendants who gave the account (they incriminated themselves). Ched's mate admitted having sex but he participated in all the normal social rules (chat up, getting to know her, etc.) of taking a woman to bed. Ched however appears to have circumvented the normal social rules and gone straight to the sex (oh, and he appears to have invited some mates to be voyeurs at the window with smart phones). The only sketchy part of this case is this: Was the woman intoxicated? Considering she couldn't remember, it's a good indicator of the amount of alcohol she's consumed (or she's been drugged)? Or that you believe the law is stupid in regards to consent? In which case, this is nothing to do with this being sketchy but everything to do with an opinion you have about consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 I've made my view clear. I don't want to get into any more arguments and to be fair I have probably pushed my case so much as to make it believed that I think he is innocent, which is incorrect. If you can't see how it is sketchy (tweets from the girl claiming about a big pay day, deleted facebook messages at the time of her intercourse, etc) then you haven't researched properly. He may well be guilty, and in which case he deserves everything that came to him, but I still stand by what I said in that he should be free to work at any business that wishes to take him on once his debt to society is paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityexile Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 All a bit sad really, I think there may come a time when people will need to get written proof and a text to prove they have not raped a partner or someone they have met. I am saying this with no bearing to Evans case, but to rape laws in general. As this seems the way the law is going, and this goes both ways for both men and women. If you cannot prove sex was consensual then you are a rapist is what it looks like a lot of people here are saying How do you prove that without documented proof. I guess I have raped the other half many times judging by the proof needed in the eyes of the law! A misunderstanding of what sits at the core of our legal system. You would be the defendent. It is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt, with evidence, that you are guilty. The reason it is so hard to get a conviction in so many cases, as the bar is set so high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 A misunderstanding of what sits at the core of our legal system. You would be the defendent. It is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt, with evidence, that you are guilty. The reason it is so hard to get a conviction in so many cases, as the bar is set so high. Fully aware that this goes against my argument of the possibility that he's innocent, but while we're on it, I absolutely agree, it is stupidly difficult to get a rape conviction here. When you compare to other offences the figures are staggering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashtonboy Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 But the point is Mike Tyson is on our tv screens. Society didn't castigate him, society got him record pay per views. Also I'd stop far far back from mentioning Ched Evans in the same breath as a predatory, manipulative, conniving paedophile such as Jimmy Saville. That's not belittling Evans, but vilifying Saville. I would suggest that the only part of Saville's description not applicable is paedophile! I also state again that it still does not make it Ok, because you can quote instances of it occurring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 I'm out now anyway, I've made my view. I lose all faith in our society when the pitchfork mob come out and believe anything that they're spoonfed, and distort 'facts' to suit their argument. It's a very sketchy case, and as an open-minded person I am reserving judgement, particularly given a footballers' susceptibility to falling foul of a mentalist of a woman (I'm not insinuating that about her, I don't know anything about her). I also think to label him as a convicted rapist (which he technically is yes) and tarnish him with everything that comes with it is dangerous given that in my opinion 95% of rapists have actually committed far worse crimes than he did, even if he is genuinely guilty. I can understand why a business wouldn't want to employ him but he has every right to be a pro footballer again if a club wants to take him on, and rightly so. Nobody's labelling him a convicted rapist. They're merely stating that he's a convicted rapist. For the simple reason that he's been convicted of rape. Not just 'technically' convicted of rape but actually, materially convicted of rape. Thus making him a convicted rapist. To state otherwise would be inaccurate representatation of the facts. I think you're falling into the trap of picturing rape as being a stranger in the bushes threatening someone with a knife and then having sex with them without their consent. First of all, it's important to bear in mind such cases are thankfully rare. However rape sadly isn't - in anonymous surveys as many as 1 in 4 (I think) women report having been raped. And bear in mind these are anonymous surveys where the rapist is never identified and an allegation never made so it's not possible to dismiss this as women with vendettas trying to ruin lives, as some rape apologists tend to do. This is women simply reporting their experiences. What's important to remember is that rape is having sex sex with someone either without consent or when they are unable to give consent. Being attacked by a stranger or threatened with a weapon is not a typical rape and, in those rare cases where that does happen, neither of those things are what makes it rape. They might be aggravating factors which would add to the length of the sentence, or even necessitate additional charges, but I suspect what Evans did is far closer to a typical rape than those rare cases with knives and weapons. Your assertion 95% of rapes are worse than what he's done factually isn't true. Next up, I'm not really sure why you think people claiming she has been hounded are making that up. The fact is the court granted her anonymity and, against the court's wishes, Evans' supporters revealed her identity on Twitter, forcing her to be granted a new name and identity. Her identity and location being revealed has forced her to change location fives times. All because someone had sex with her when she was too drunk to remember it. if you don't believe that's 'hounding', I'd be curious to know what you think 'hounding' is. I'd also strongly disagree with your assertion Evans' website merely defends him and does not attack her. I've read the website and frankly I think you're wrong on that. Furthermore I find it interesting that you seem to be accusing people who disagree with you with believing things they have been 'spoonfed' when the most damning statement of Evans' situation - the court record of proceedings and explanations for the failure of the appeals - is not a particularly well-publicised document and has only been found by people who've actually sought it out. Meanwhile you seem to be stating as fact a number of suppositions, subjective opinions and misconstructions of fact that I suspect have primarily come from Evans' website and supporters. I would suggest it is you, rather than the people who support the conviction, who needs to interrogate your sources a little better and not take everything you read with a pinch of salt. Lastly, I refer to your last sentence - "I can understand why a business wouldn't want to employ him but he has every right to be a pro footballer again if a club wants to take him on, and rightly so." You are of course correct. As long as he finds a club that is happy to take him on, and doesn't violate his probation conditions as he is still serving his sentence on licence (e.g. a move aboad) then of course he has every right to be a pro footballer again. But nobody is disputing that and nobody is 'preventing' clubs from taking him on. They're urging clubs not to, and making clubs aware of the impact it will have on their standing in the local community, but the people who've signed the petition don't have any power to stop a club taking him on and nobody's going to ban Evans from being a professional footballer. So I find this talk that anyone's being banned or prevented from doing something rather odd. Evans has the right to pursue any career he wants. But fans - and anyone else in society - also have the right to make their feelings known to any club that signs him. Disagreeing with something is not the same as banning of preventing it and I find the conflation between the two a little troubling. If a club decides signing Evans is worth the bad PR it will bring then that is their choice. But if, as seems to be the case, clubs are deciding the PR backlash of signing an unrepentant convicted rapist outweighs the advantages, that's their decision too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 I've made my view clear. I don't want to get into any more arguments and to be fair I have probably pushed my case so much as to make it believed that I think he is innocent, which is incorrect. If you can't see how it is sketchy (tweets from the girl claiming about a big pay day, deleted facebook messages at the time of her intercourse, etc) then you haven't researched properly. He may well be guilty, and in which case he deserves everything that came to him, but I still stand by what I said in that he should be free to work at any business that wishes to take him on once his debt to society is paid. I've also made it clear that I think he should be allowed to continue playing football. The reason he's finding it harder than it should be (and let's face it, even if he admitted guilt and gave a full apology, it would still be hard on him) is because of his intransigence. Tweets, facebook... what is this to do with this case (unless you think she set up a trap, in which case it appears that you've bought into the character assassination that is currently taking place against this poor woman)? Twitter and Facebook did not force these guys to give a full account of what took place. Ched might as well have given a signed confession. If you ask me, Ched would have been better off admitting it (I think his continued plea of innocence is causing him the most harm and will not allow people to forgive him). He then should have put himself up as the example of the dangers of having sex with a very drunk woman - you can be done for rape. He then demonstrates real contrition. However we are now past that and he's likely to suffer the consequences of his chosen course of action. Who's running his PR campaign? It appears to be Max Clifford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 I love lamp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coombsy Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Going to Oldham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshtonGreat Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 I fail to see how this case is sketchy? A woman is drunk to the point that she can not remember what actually took place - she did not give any account of the sex that took place, it was the defendants who gave the account (they incriminated themselves). Ched's mate admitted having sex but he participated in all the normal social rules (chat up, getting to know her, etc.) of taking a woman to bed. Ched however appears to have circumvented the normal social rules and gone straight to the sex (oh, and he appears to have invited some mates to be voyeurs at the window with smart phones). The only sketchy part of this case is this: Was the woman intoxicated? Considering she couldn't remember, it's a good indicator of the amount of alcohol she's consumed (or she's been drugged)? Or that you believe the law is stupid in regards to consent? In which case, this is nothing to do with this being sketchy but everything to do with an opinion you have about consent. Sorry but that's ridiculous. Surely if the girl was too drunk to remember anything, surely Evans mate had sex with her without her consent as well, whether he 'got to know her first' or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Sorry but that's ridiculous. Surely if the girl was too drunk to remember anything, surely Evans mate had sex with her without her consent as well, whether he 'got to know her first' or not. Perhaps so but clearly the jury felt there wasn't enough evidence to prove that beyond reasonable doubt so the jury did not convict. However it would be a mistake to read that as meaning the jury could not or should not have convicted Evans either. It should be noted that Evans' legal team have already attempted to appeal on the grounds of the two verdicts being inconsistent and the conclusion of that was that the appeal was refused on the grounds that the verdicts were not inconsistent or incompatible with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am the mole Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 I love lampyou trying to defuse the tension with quotes from films? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bs3 Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 As I said in my previous post, this is too simple minded an approach. Would you categorise him alongside someone who violently threatened a girl with a knife in a secluded location? Yes rape is rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Didn't know it was illegally gained (if it even was), but if that evidence was there and I was innocent I would use it. I agree Ched could have done more to stop this, but IF he is innocent then there is bound to be a huge amount of resentment. "Saint Ched".... It's you in literally every slightly controversial topic isn't it? Your close mindedness is mind-boggling. Do you know what it would help if you actually read replies and not just make up what you imagine you read. it's not evidence at all, it's just purely propaganda. Close mindedness that's hilarious, I just have trust in our legal system, a system that firstly the police decided they had enough evidence to proceed with this case, a view obviously backed up by the CPS, the judge who not only would have acquainted himself with the case beforehand could have halted the case at any juncture if he believed that the evidence was unsafe and he didn't, 12 people who sat through every second of evidence and were given legal advice by the judge to help them arrive at their verdicts, which they duly did and 2 failed appeal attempts. Your view is not based on any of the evidence whatsoever, in fact you appear to know little or nothing about the case other than you believe he is innocent. But given all of that, have you get a better idea of how we can have improve our judicial system?, jury free trials?, that would be great wouldn't it where judges who have seen every bit of evidence (even the stuff that had it been a jury trial he would have ruled inadmissible) get to make the decisions or perhaps you favour Jeremy Kyle trials using lie detectors?, an unsubstantiated gimmick. You must have a better system in mind over a system that you have no faith in at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JammyOne Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Yes rape is rape. That's pretty facile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Do you know what it would help if you actually read replies and not just make up what you imagine you read. it's not evidence at all, it's just purely propaganda. Close mindedness that's hilarious, I just have trust in our legal system, a system that firstly the police decided they had enough evidence to proceed with this case, a view obviously backed up by the CPS, the judge who not only would have acquainted himself with the case beforehand could have halted the case at any juncture if he believed that the evidence was unsafe and he didn't, 12 people who sat through every second of evidence and were given legal advice by the judge to help them arrive at their verdicts, which they duly did and 2 failed appeal attempts. Your view is not based on any of the evidence whatsoever, in fact you appear to know little or nothing about the case other than you believe he is innocent. But given all of that, have you get a better idea of how we can have improve our judicial system?, jury free trials?, that would be great wouldn't it where judges who have seen every bit of evidence (even the stuff that had it been a jury trial he would have ruled inadmissible) get to make the decisions or perhaps you favour Jeremy Kyle trials using lie detectors?, an unsubstantiated gimmick. You must have a better system in mind over a system that you have no faith in at all. No I don't. Well played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 That's pretty facile. Factually accurate though. If you're convicted of rape, you're convicted of having sex with someone without consent and whether you did that after threatening strangers with knives, did that after inviting them back to your flat, did it to your wife or partner because you fancied sex and she didn't or did that when someone were drunk to give consent, the crime you've convicted of is exactly the same. And, if someone does have a rape conviction then it's the sex without consent they had it for in all of those cases. If someone additionally threatened someone with a knife then that might be an aggravating factor in the sentencing, or might mean they also get convicted of possession of a dangerous weapon and making threats to kill, but that's additional to the rape charge itself, which stems from the sex without consent and not those other factors. So, if someone has been convicted of rape then they've been convicted for the exact same thing Evans has been convicted for, regardless of any aggravating factors or additional charges that may be involved in top of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bs3 Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 That's pretty facile. He raped a woman, he as been convicted of rape , he is a sex offender and rapist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshtonGreat Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Perhaps so but clearly the jury felt there wasn't enough evidence to prove that beyond reasonable doubt so the jury did not convict. However it would be a mistake to read that as meaning the jury could not or should not have convicted Evans either. It should be noted that Evans' legal team have already attempted to appeal on the grounds of the two verdicts being inconsistent and the conclusion of that was that the appeal was refused on the grounds that the verdicts were not inconsistent or incompatible with each other. Blimey, I would've thought that was pivotal to the whole case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cider-manc Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Again ignoring the argument of if he is guilty or not. As a convicted rapist I don't believe he should be playing professional football again. He wouldn't be allowed to return to be a teacher, lawyer , with children etc. And with the influence that being a professional footballer brings I see it as no difference. I'm not saying he shouldn't work again. Just not in a position of such influence. As for the argument of if he is guilty or not... Going off the basis that very few cases of rape even make it to court never mind get guilty verdicts due to lack of evidence... It suggests to me that there was more than enough evidence to say he was guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityexile Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 He raped a woman, he as been convicted of rape , he is a sex offender and rapist. Rape is rape of course. However, it is not unreasonable for the sentance to reflect both mitigating and aggrevating circumstances. I do think that is right, which is entirely different from suggesting there is lesser forms of the crime. If anyone is interestedhttp://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/sentencing/ His five years was bang on the starting tariff, given no aggrevating circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bs3 Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Rape is rape of course. However, it is not unreasonable for the sentance to reflect both mitigating and aggrevating circumstances. I do think that is right, which is entirely different from suggesting there is lesser forms of the crime. If anyone is interestedhttp://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/sentencing/ His five years was bang on the starting tariff, given no aggrevating circumstances. Yes I do agree . Just wanted to make a point to a few on here , who seem to be an oppologist for Ched Evens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
And Its Smith Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Let it be known that Lee Johnson doesn't want to sign Evans so if he signs it is the boards decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Rizzle Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Let it be known that Lee Johnson doesn't want to sign Evans so if he signs it is the boards decision. Yawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.