The way women are trying to shame Ched Evans is despicable (and sexist)

any intoxicated girl who has sex has been raped - which in turn means that almost all women in society have been raped in their life.

A fiver says he doesn't get one. The route he's going down, his original appeal having been thoroughly rejected, has about a 2% success rate in getting to that stage or a direct acquittal.

That's what his PR adviser presumably told him to say, yes. However it should be legally open to him to say something like "At the time, I had a genuine and reasonable belief in her consent. I now understand that was wrong," because that doesn't say 'I'm guilty' - having a mistaken but reasonable belief in consent at the time is a complete defence to the charge.

Yep. Unfortunately for him, the jury - the arbiters of fact in our system - decided beyond any reasonable doubt that she didn't.

He probably did have a mistaken belief in her consent, but unlike McDonald's, the jury unanimously decided his belief wasn't reasonable. If he'd - gasp - actually asked her if she wanted to have sex with him, it very probably would have been.

Read the above, again. He can't do any work without permission. If he can find a club to sign him, he has presumably been led to understand that it will be acceptable to play for one here (no going abroad, remember...) unless he does something to end his release on licence, when he's back inside to finish his sentence.

I didn't read after you first sentence. A man and woman, two equals get drunk and consent to sex (just like the hundreds of drunken sexual encounters between strangers every friday/saturday night) - now according to your first sentence, word for word, you are implying that hundreds of women are raped every Friday/saturday evening.

Hundreds of women probably ARE raped the every Friday and Saturday evening. That sentence was perfectly accurate.

A footballer earning thousands a week shouldn't be in a position like that in the first place. He could easily get laid by gold diggers.

But this would be inaccurate. He still believes that she provided valid consent, and that the jury do not have sufficient evidence to prove that she did not, or that his belief was unreasonable, and he is maintaining his innocence along these lines.

In short, his claim is that the jury were wrong - hence his wanting a retrial.

when it comes to the punishment they gave him, they now think the courts made a mistake in punishing him so leniently. And they're now taking the law into their own hands and pressurising football clubs to add to his punishment.

But in the context of his post; if a man and a woman are both extremely drunk in equal measure, and they have sex with each other, should this be classified as the man raping the woman? And if so, why is it not the other way round? Why is the woman not considered equally guilty for having sex with a man who was that drunk?

If you have sex with someone who is not in the mental state to consent, that is rape. You are taking advantage of someone who is not in control of their actions. You can argue whether or not it's right for that person to have put themselves in that position in the first place but whether or not you agree with that, this was undeniably a case of rape and there is nothing in the slightest bit unfair about his conviction. What you essentially seem to be arguing is that drunken people are fair game for assault, which is just disgusting. If that wasn't bad enough, the victim's identity was leaked and she received further abuse over the internet, forcing her to get a new identity. Her new identity was also leaked and she got even more abuse, forcing her to change her identity again. Her life has been completely ruined because of this footballer. You can make a case that she should not have got that drunk in the first place but Evans is overwhelmingly at fault here and it is not her fault in the slightest that he took advantage of her. That is his fault and his fault alone.

The worst part out of all of this is that Evans shows no remorse. If he showed that he understood what he did was wrong, I'd have some sympathy. But not only has he not done this, he hasn't spoken out at all about the further abuse the victim received because of the disgusting behaviour of his fans. He clearly hasn't been rehabilitated in the slightest and doesn't seem to have learned anything from his conviction.

There is nothing remotely sexist about this. She should not have got so drunk in the first place but that does not make her fair game for abuse. He raped her - that is totally undeniable as far as the law is concerned - and she is not responsible for that. He has showed no remorse for this and has not spoken out about the abuse his victim received at the hands of his fans. Evans does not deserve to be a free man as far as I'm concerned and he certainly does not deserve to be playing for a football team where he will be seen as a rolemodel for many children.

His case is under review by the Criminal Case Review Commission. It wouldn't have been accepted for review if it there wasn't a good case that the original verdict was wrong, and in my opinion and that of many other commentators - including female ones - it was a wrong one.

Hundreds of women probably ARE raped the every Friday and Saturday evening. That sentence was perfectly accurate.


Posted from TSR Mobile

and what? she might have been lying there naked and horny and calling for Evans to have sex with her. Again you don't know.

The court has decided that they can determine "beyond reasonable doubt" that she was not in a mental state to consent. They would not do that without considerable evidence.

Why do you think a person is liable for their actions when drunk?

Erm, nope. They look at - "review" - all cases sent to them. The overwhelming majority are rejected after that review: just under 3.5% are sent by the CCRC to the Court of Appeal for another look.

His case is under review by the Criminal Case Review Commission. It wouldn't have been accepted for review if it there wasn't a good case that the original verdict was wrong, and in my opinion and that of many other commentators - including female ones - it was a wrong one.

With the law requiring reverse burden of proof, please tell me how he provides this proof of consent in this situation? He ****ed up when he admitting to having sex with her and at this point the burden of proof was on him, not her. According to the current law he is guilty of rape. If this case is being reviewed it is probably due to a fault with the law and a revision needed as opposed to the result of the case.

Ched is guilty because it is deemed that McDonald had consent by her going back to the hotel with him and her being not so drunk that she couldn't grant consent. If this prior consent has been given then McDonald is innocent. She can't remember and he claims there was consent then its easy to see in this case how he got off.

Evans however turned up later after being texted.

At the point where he got involved she was allegedly in bed and then he started having sex with her.

What we do know is that there is no evidence of her consenting or willingly showing a desire to be with Evans.

Therefore the reverse burden of proof is on Evans to prove he had consent from the victim.

all in all, he only has himself to blame.

I don't agree that he is guilty of rape for having admitted to having sex with a woman who was probably intoxicated at the time. Perhaps you should revise your knowledge of rape law before casting judgements.

'Comment: Under the 2003 Act once the prosecution has proved that sexual activity took place in one of the precluded circumstances (e.g. victim detained, asleep or drugged) it would be for the defendant, on the balance of probabilities, to persuade a jury that consent had been given (a reverse burden of proof).

Nope. Given that the prosecution clearly - from the verdict - proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she did not have the capacity to consent, all Evans had to do was establish that - like McDonald - he may have had a reasonable belief in her consent. That it was a mistaken belief doesn't matter, so long as it's reasonable. And it wasn't.