Ched Evans

[whelk]

Reading up on this case... The girl never actually accused Ched Evans of rape, it was all down to the crown prosecution service who decided she was raped when she told them she could not remember events.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

Most reading done by some of the idiots on this thread will probably be searching #teamched on Twitter. Embarrassing and most seem simpletons but LD is not a stupid person. Just goes to show.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/10/14/team-ched-show-just-how-sick-football-culture-in-britain-is/

[sadoldgit]

According to the court, the 'victim' had sex in the days after this incident! I've never been raped but I highly doubt you'd be out on the pull in the days following! Regardless of how you feel about Evans, she deserves to face the rap in court herself.

 

It would appear that you are stuck in a time warp in the 70s. It is attitudes like this that prevent people from coming forward and reporting rape. The Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner has this to say. " The only difference between a clear conviction of Mr Evans in 2012 and the absolute refusal of him having any leave to appeal at that time, and his acquittal now, is that he has called some men to throw discredit on the woman's sexual reputation. That I think is pouring prejudice which is exactly what used to happen before the law in 1999 stopped the admission of previous sexual history in order to show consent, We've gone back I'm afraid probably about 30 years."

[Batman]

It would appear that you are stuck in a time warp in the 70s. It is attitudes like this that prevent people from coming forward and reporting rape. The Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner has this to say. " The only difference between a clear conviction of Mr Evans in 2012 and the absolute refusal of him having any leave to appeal at that time, and his acquittal now, is that he has called some men to throw discredit on the woman's sexual reputation. That I think is pouring prejudice which is exactly what used to happen before the law in 1999 stopped the admission of previous sexual history in order to show consent, We've gone back I'm afraid probably about 30 years."

 

he is not a rapist after all then soggy.

[LGTL]

It would appear that you are stuck in a time warp in the 70s. It is attitudes like this that prevent people from coming forward and reporting rape. The Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner has this to say. " The only difference between a clear conviction of Mr Evans in 2012 and the absolute refusal of him having any leave to appeal at that time, and his acquittal now, is that he has called some men to throw discredit on the woman's sexual reputation. That I think is pouring prejudice which is exactly what used to happen before the law in 1999 stopped the admission of previous sexual history in order to show consent, We've gone back I'm afraid probably about 30 years."

 

Which is a massive insult to the jury, who clearly felt like this new evidence was relevant to the case, thus finding him not guilty. So too, one of the country's most experienced judges.

[Lord Duckhunter]

It would appear that you are stuck in a time warp in the 70s. It is attitudes like this that prevent people from coming forward and reporting rape. The Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner has this to say. " The only difference between a clear conviction of Mr Evans in 2012 and the absolute refusal of him having any leave to appeal at that time, and his acquittal now, is that he has called some men to throw discredit on the woman's sexual reputation. That I think is pouring prejudice which is exactly what used to happen before the law in 1999 stopped the admission of previous sexual history in order to show consent, We've gone back I'm afraid probably about 30 years."

 

Hogwash

 

In exceptional circumstances than a chicks past sexual behaviour should be used if a judge deems it relevant. If bird X liked being tied up and blindfolded , but then accused a bloke of raping her in a similar manner , surely it's only right that when 15 blokes come forward to say she enjoyed that particular sex it's relevant to the case . In no way am i saying bird X wasn't raped , she could have consented to 15 blokes doing it and said no to one . BUT if the judge decided it's relevant then it should be put before the jury . My guess would be there's hundreds of cases a year where judges rule sexual history inadmissible, but you'll never hear about it .

 

Some of the problem is blurring of the lines between consent & regret .

[Nolan]

Not to mention the woman concerned couldn't Actually remember what happened, so could not give any evidence herself. Therefore to establish if her consent could be given, her reactions with her previous partners had huge relevance in comparison.

 

Everybody needs to read this balanced piece ... https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[DuncanRG]

Not to mention the woman concerned couldn't Actually remember what happened, so could not give any evidence herself. Therefore to establish if her consent could be given, her reactions with her previous partners had huge relevance in comparison.

 

Everybody needs to read this balanced piece ... https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

That post is very good on some of the complexities - particularly on the relieving fact that the Evans case sets no precedent on admitting sexual history as evidence - but is not questioning enough of the law and whether it provides justice for victims. With such a pitiful conviction rate, it doesn't at the moment - though I pass no comment on this particular case.

 

It is incredibly fishy that these two men came forward for cash and provided an account of identical behaviour to Evans - but that is the difficulty of rape prosecution and not necessarily a reason to question the result. The jury were aware of the payment and made their decision. No one can fully understand unless they were in the courtroom and deliberation room.

Edited 15 October, 2016 by DuncanRG

[Baird of the land]

Not to mention the woman concerned couldn't Actually remember what happened, so could not give any evidence herself. Therefore to establish if her consent could be given, her reactions with her previous partners had huge relevance in comparison.

 

Everybody needs to read this balanced piece ... https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

Interesting read, wasn't aware of the situation regarding drunk consent. Case is a murky gray mess. Personally don't think Evans as a person comes out particularly well, nor do i like those using the result as some kind of proof that the girl was lying when she says she can't remember what happened.

[DuncanRG]

Interesting read, wasn't aware of the situation regarding drunk consent. Case is a murky gray mess. Personally don't think Evans as a person comes out particularly well, nor do i like those using the result as some kind of proof that the girl was lying when she says she can't remember what happened.

 

It's vile misogyny that sets people against victims and alleged victims, nothing else. There is absolutely no incentive to falsely accuse a famous and powerful man of rape, especially not knowing the abuse you will receive and traumatic trial process in the public eye. You don't win a cash prize when they go to jail or get any 'attention' when you're anonymous. The poor woman has had to move house five times.

[Nolan]

It's vile misogyny that sets people against victims and alleged victims, nothing else. There is absolutely no incentive to falsely accuse a famous and powerful man of rape, especially not knowing the abuse you will receive and traumatic trial process in the public eye. You don't win a cash prize when they go to jail or get any 'attention' when you're anonymous. The poor woman has had to move house five times.

And as I said previously. She never accused Ched Evans of doing so either, which makes it doubly strange why the cps chose to prosecute.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[DuncanRG]

And as I said previously. She never accused Ched Evans of doing so either, which makes it doubly strange why the cps chose to prosecute.

 

Even more disgusting that she's been named, abused, threatened. I wasn't aware she hadn't made the accusation herself, but that's not a reason not to prosecute. If there's evidence of a crime, it is the state's duty to pursue it, especially with an offence like rape when so many victims are afraid to speak out.

[hutch]

But there wasn't any real evidence of a crime. The police and CPS have to take this one on the chin.

[DuncanRG]

But there wasn't any real evidence of a crime. The police and CPS have to take this one on the chin.

 

The fact there was an initial conviction should tell you there was enough to meet the threshold for prosecution. But yes, evidence is difficult when the defence case centres on consent rather than identity or whatever.

[Baird of the land]

But there wasn't any real evidence of a crime. The police and CPS have to take this one on the chin.

 

The first jury thought beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a crime. Now even if a second jury has decided that there is enough doubt to acquit him that by no means makes it wrong for the police and CPS to try the evidence before a court.

[Nolan]

The fact there was an initial conviction should tell you there was enough to meet the threshold for prosecution. But yes, evidence is difficult when the defence case centres on consent rather than identity or whatever.

Which was a very strange conviction. According to the original case Clayton Mcdonald was cleared of rape, therefore she must have been able to consent to him. But apparently she was unable to consent to Ched Evans a short time later.

[hutch]

The fact there was an initial conviction should tell you there was enough to meet the threshold for prosecution. But yes, evidence is difficult when the defence case centres on consent rather than identity or whatever.

There was only evidence of half a crime. That, imo, is why it was quashed. There was no evidence that Evans could not reasonably have assumed consent. The original trial tried to ignore that, but ultimately failed.

 

I agree it's a pretty difficult situation, but that doesn't make it right to convert it to guilty until proven innocent. If a woman wants to avoid getting dragged into such a he-said she-said argument then don't get paralytic then go back to a hotel room with a complete stranger.

[DuncanRG]

I agree it's a pretty difficult situation, but that doesn't make it right to convert it to guilty until proven innocent.

 

Sorry? He was never presumed guilty - he was innocent until proven guilty, then this was reversed.

 

If a woman wants to avoid getting dragged into such a he-said she-said argument then don't get paralytic then go back to a hotel room with a complete stranger.

 

This is the attitude which stops women from speaking out and emboldens rapists. Women can go out where they like, wear what they like, sleep with whoever they like without deserving to be the victim of a horrible crime. Do not blame them, ever.

[hutch]

Sorry? He was never presumed guilty - he was innocent until proven guilty, then this was reversed.

 

 

 

Women can go out where they like, wear what they like, sleep with whoever they like without deserving to be the victim of a horrible crime.

Did I say otherwise? The woman in this case wasn't a victim of any crime, and she never claimed that she was.

[Lord Duckhunter]

It's vile misogyny that sets people against victims and alleged victims, nothing else. There is absolutely no incentive to falsely accuse a famous and powerful man of rape,

 

Some women make it up . Regret , covering up cheating, mental health issues , plenty of cases where men's lives have been ruined by lies . What do you call that?

[DuncanRG]

Some women make it up . Regret , covering up cheating, mental health issues , plenty of cases where men's lives have been ruined by lies . What do you call that?

 

I call it morally wrong, of course. But the number of false accusers is a drop in the ocean compared to the number of rapists who get away with it, and I am deeply suspicious of those who seem more concerned by the former than latter.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I call it morally wrong, of course. But the number of false accusers is a drop in the ocean compared to the number of rapists who get away with it, and I am deeply suspicious of those who seem more concerned by the former than latter.

 

The women who make accusations up not only ruin men's lives but also contribute towards other women not being belived.

 

It seems to me that people like John Leslie & Evans , who have basically had their careers ruined are considered "innocent but" . The but being that they are immoral , ****s and had they not treated women like their personal spunk vessels wouldn't have got in this mess . If women can sleep with who they like, dress how they want and act like they want without bring raped ( which I agree they can ) , then surely men can treat women like shiete ,use them & shaft as many as they want ( provided it's legal) without the stigma of " ok they're innocent but blah blah blah". I don't see too much reporting of how an innocent man was locked up for 2 years , and loads of how sordid he was etc ect .

[DuncanRG]

If women can sleep with who they like, dress how they want and act like they want without bring raped ( which I agree they can ) , then surely men can treat women like shiete ,use them & shaft as many as they want ( provided it's legal) without the stigma of " ok they're innocent but blah blah blah".

 

I'm highlighting the reason this is a false equivalence.

 

The predominant reason rape victims are not believed is misogyny. That is inescapable.

Edited 15 October, 2016 by DuncanRG

[Weston Super Saint]

I'm highlighting the reason this is a false equivalence.

 

The predominant reason rape victims are not believed is misogyny. That is inescapable.

 

I suspect the reason why [some] rape victims are not believed is probably because proving 'rape' can sometimes be very difficult. In the majority of cases it will come down to he said, she said with only two people present - one of which will obviously be lying. Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it legal but also doesn't make it mysogynistic.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I'm highlighting the reason this is a false equivalence.

 

The predominant reason rape victims are not believed is misogyny. That is inescapable.

 

Rubbish . You highlighted " treat women like shiete " and also " use them " . You can use women without it being rape . When I was younger I had some older bird that I could call on at anytime . I used to go out and if I couldn't pull I'd knock on her door and give her one . That's using her , disrespecting her , treating her like shiete , but it's not raping her .

 

Not belived by whom? You can't have a legal system where every victim is belived regardless . It's up to the police , CPS & courts to take the emotion out of it and give a balanced judgement . If they decide to not believe the women it's their job not a hatred of women

[ScepticalStan]

There is absolutely no incentive to falsely accuse a famous and powerful man of rape

 

[sadoldgit]

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

 

This is worth a read.

[Batman]

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

 

This is worth a read.

 

Still, he is not a rapist though

[sadoldgit]

Hogwash

 

In exceptional circumstances than a chicks past sexual behaviour should be used if a judge deems it relevant. If bird X liked being tied up and blindfolded , but then accused a bloke of raping her in a similar manner , surely it's only right that when 15 blokes come forward to say she enjoyed that particular sex it's relevant to the case . In no way am i saying bird X wasn't raped , she could have consented to 15 blokes doing it and said no to one . BUT if the judge decided it's relevant then it should be put before the jury . My guess would be there's hundreds of cases a year where judges rule sexual history inadmissible, but you'll never hear about it .

 

Some of the problem is blurring of the lines between consent & regret .[/quote

 

Sorry mate, the fact that you still insist on calling women "chicks" speaks volumes about where you are coming from.

[Sour Mash]

I'm highlighting the reason this is a false equivalence.

 

The predominant reason rape victims are not believed is misogyny. That is inescapable.

 

In a case like this, how can the jury ever be sure beyond reasonable doubt, regardless of any misogyny?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Where am I coming from SOG? Because I call them chicks and birds , that makes me a rape apologist or a women hater . It just means I don't fall for this political correct pony . Blokes are blokes and birds are chicks , it's just words .

[Lord Duckhunter]

In a case like this, how can the jury ever be sure beyond reasonable doubt, regardless of any misogyny?

 

Spot on . The threshold for " beyond reasonable doubt" is lower for rape than every other crime . At the end of the day unless a masked perv attacked a defenceless bird , there's reasonable doubt in most cases . Juries use common sense and are flexible with this , because reasonable doubt in a he said she said case prob exists in 95% of cases. Not that lefties and wimmin libbers will ever accept there is flexibility of reasonable doubt in rape cases

Edited 15 October, 2016 by Lord Duckhunter

[DuncanRG]

 

Feel free to suggest a reason that makes all the abuse worth it.

 

Rubbish . You highlighted " treat women like shiete " and also " use them " . You can use women without it being rape . When I was younger I had some older bird that I could call on at anytime . I used to go out and if I couldn't pull I'd knock on her door and give her one . That's using her , disrespecting her , treating her like shiete , but it's not raping her .

 

It's not rape, it's behaviour that should be discouraged and is rightly criticised. You were asking why Evans is still criticised for being a slimeball despite being cleared of any crime. (Interesting interview with Evans in the Sunday Times today, by the way. A little more contrite than usual)

 

Not belived by whom? You can't have a legal system where every victim is belived regardless . It's up to the police , CPS & courts to take the emotion out of it and give a balanced judgement . If they decide to not believe the women it's their job not a hatred of women

 

That would be well and good if it was a balanced judgement. Unfortunately there are far too many cases of women being quizzed about what they were wearing, how much they'd had to drink, being laughed at and disrespected. These are problems you don't get when you say you've been robbed or assaulted. Believing someone when they report a crime is not incompatible with presumption of innocence - you treat the accuser with the seriousness and respect they deserve while you collect evidence. If there's not enough, so be it.

 

In a case like this, how can the jury ever be sure beyond reasonable doubt, regardless of any misogyny?

 

In a case like this they probably can't, though it's unwise to speculate if you weren't in the courtroom. I'm talking more about the vast majority of rapes which never make it to trial.

 

I suspect the reason why [some] rape victims are not believed is probably because proving 'rape' can sometimes be very difficult. In the majority of cases it will come down to he said, she said with only two people present - one of which will obviously be lying. Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it legal but also doesn't make it mysogynistic.

 

Proving rape in court comes later, I'm talking about the investigation stage. When people ask for victims to be believed, they only want them to be taken as seriously as people who report other crimes. That doesn't happen enough at the moment.

Edited 16 October, 2016 by DuncanRG

[sadoldgit]

Where am I coming from SOG? Because I call them chicks and birds , that makes me a rape apologist or a women hater . It just means I don't fall for this political correct pony . Blokes are blokes and birds are chicks , it's just words .

 

Would you call a black person a n****r? Afterfall, it is just a word.

[Batman]

Would you call a black person a n****r? Afterfall, it is just a word.

 

girls call blokes all sorts too.

have you ever seen loose women?

[whelk]

I'd fire anyone at my work who referred to woman as chicks. Still not many dinosaurs are in my industry so doesn't come up.

[Verbal]

Because I call them chicks and birds , that makes me a rape apologist or a women hater.

 

Correct.

[Gemmel]

Rape is a cowardly, pathetic, weak, nasty and horrible crime.

 

Both sides are out in full force on twitter and actually no one from either side is likely to change the minds of the others.

 

However, at the risk of being labeled an "apologist", anyone who ever read anything about this case, the transcripts or the evidence provided in court, would or should know, this is /was a very different and very unusual case.

 

Just taking the highlights - She was so drunk she was unable to give consent to both, but was to one.

 

She never actually claimed to have been raped.

 

The whole story is very seedy, but from what I have read and understood, this should never have come to trail and the guilty party in this whole saga is the crown prosecution ...in my opinion.

[Winnersaint]

Rubbish . You highlighted " treat women like shiete " and also " use them " . You can use women without it being rape . When I was younger I had some older bird that I could call on at anytime . I used to go out and if I couldn't pull I'd knock on her door and give her one . That's using her , disrespecting her , treating her like shiete , but it's not raping her .

 

Not belived by whom? You can't have a legal system where every victim is belived regardless . It's up to the police , CPS & courts to take the emotion out of it and give a balanced judgement . If they decide to not believe the women it's their job not a hatred of women

 

One hopes you had you tongue planted firmly in your Cheek when you typed this!

[Lord Duckhunter]

I'd fire anyone at my work who referred to woman as chicks. Still not many dinosaurs are in my industry so doesn't come up.

 

See you in court

[Sour Mash]

Correct.

 

Just to be clear, Verbal thinks that the majority of blokes on building sites, pubs, football grounds are rape apologists.

 

A great example of a modern day Labour supporter and their hatred of the English working class.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

A great example of a modern day Labour supporter and their hatred of the English working class.

 

Spot on

[sadoldgit]

Still, he is not a rapist though

 

Your constant support of Evans does you no credit. Still I suppose it is just a usual night out for you navy boys isn't it? You don't strike me as someone who has children, but if you did would you be proud to have Evans as a son? How would you feel too if this had happened to your daughter?

[sadoldgit]

Rape is a cowardly, pathetic, weak, nasty and horrible crime.

 

Both sides are out in full force on twitter and actually no one from either side is likely to change the minds of the others.

 

However, at the risk of being labeled an "apologist", anyone who ever read anything about this case, the transcripts or the evidence provided in court, would or should know, this is /was a very different and very unusual case.

 

Just taking the highlights - She was so drunk she was unable to give consent to both, but was to one.

 

She never actually claimed to have been raped.

 

The whole story is very seedy, but from what I have read and understood, this should never have come to trail and the guilty party in this whole saga is the crown prosecution ...in my opinion.

 

The CPS deal with the cases that are brought to them by the police. The woman was clearly drunk according to the CCTV footage and evidence by others. She said that she had no recollection of what happened. It was clear that two men had sex with her. If she had no recollection of what happened then how could she have been in a position to consent? It was right for the CPS to bring the case court. The first jury found Evans of rape. Evans was originally denied an appeal. If the conviction had been so weak why would that be?

[Lord Duckhunter]

How would you feel too if this had happened to your daughter?

 

What do you mean " happened " . Nothing just " happened " . She had sex with 2 blokes she had just met . I'd be gutted if my daughter acted like that , but it wasn't something that " happened " to her . It was something she participated in

[hypochondriac]

The CPS deal with the cases that are brought to them by the police. The woman was clearly drunk according to the CCTV footage and evidence by others. She said that she had no recollection of what happened. It was clear that two men had sex with her. If she had no recollection of what happened then how could she have been in a position to consent? It was right for the CPS to bring the case court. The first jury found Evans of rape. Evans was originally denied an appeal. If the conviction had been so weak why would that be?

You were the one screaming rape apologist at those who felt there was more to this case. We don't know what went on in the bedroom but clearly ched Evans believed she had consented and the jury believed there was enough doubt there to overturn his conviction. There is no doubt that ched Evans has behaved like a fool but there is also no doubt that ched is no longer a convicted rapist and those like yourself who were quick to condemn those who felt that the conviction was a bit dodgy would do well to stay a bit quiet.

[Nolan]

The CPS deal with the cases that are brought to them by the police. The woman was clearly drunk according to the CCTV footage and evidence by others. She said that she had no recollection of what happened. It was clear that two men had sex with her. If she had no recollection of what happened then how could she have been in a position to consent? It was right for the CPS to bring the case court. The first jury found Evans of rape. Evans was originally denied an appeal. If the conviction had been so weak why would that be?

It's not that simple. two things have to be proven for the conviction (according to the secret barrister article).

 

i) That X was not consenting (because she was incapable through intoxication);

 

(ii) That Evans did not reasonably believe X was consenting.

 

As both could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt he can not be found guilty.

[benjii]

The CPS deal with the cases that are brought to them by the police. The woman was clearly drunk according to the CCTV footage and evidence by others. She said that she had no recollection of what happened. It was clear that two men had sex with her. If she had no recollection of what happened then how could she have been in a position to consent? It was right for the CPS to bring the case court. The first jury found Evans of rape. Evans was originally denied an appeal. If the conviction had been so weak why would that be?

 

That's a ridiculous position to take.

 

I've been that drunk before. It doesn't mean everything that happened thereafter rendered me a mere victim of circumstance and I had no role in it. You still make conscious choices even if you can't remember events fully afterwards.

 

Thankfully the law doesn't seem to be taking such a stupid view as yours.

[Batman]

Your constant support of Evans does you no credit. Still I suppose it is just a usual night out for you navy boys isn't it? You don't strike me as someone who has children, but if you did would you be proud to have Evans as a son? How would you feel too if this had happened to your daughter?

I'm not supporting him. Just pointing out that he is most certainly not a rapist

 

Why are you bringing me and my work colleagues into this?

 

Getting a bit up tight it seems

[aintforever]

I'm not supporting him. Just pointing out that he is most certainly not a rapist

 

Why are you bringing me and my work colleagues into this?

 

Getting a bit up tight it seems

 

You can't say that he is certainly not a rapist, just that there was certainly not enough evidence to say he raped her, beyond reasonable doubt.

 

The fact that drunken consent is still consent makes the original descision to convict him seem a bit strange. How could there not possibly be reasonable doubt over the consent? I guess one of three things happened. He raped her whilst she was unconscious, they ****ged but she was too drunk to remember, they ****ged and she tried to get him done for rape on purpose for some reason.

[CB Fry]

You can't say that he is certainly not a rapist, just that there was certainly not enough evidence to say he raped her, beyond reasonable doubt.

 

The fact that drunken consent is still consent makes the original descision to convict him seem a bit strange. How could there not possibly be reasonable doubt over the consent? I guess one of three things happened. He raped her whilst she was unconscious, they ****ged but she was too drunk to remember, they ****ged and she tried to get him done for rape on purpose for some reason.

You can discount the last theory.