Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Shaming a convicted rapists is despicable?


    It's not just women that are shaming him either.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by unprinted)
    You're saying she does remember what happened?

    That certainly was the position taken by his expert witness at the trial. Unfortunately for that theory, the different expert witness for his appeal said that that was wrong, she didn't remember. The appeal also involved a new defence witness who said that she had complained about losing her memory after heavy drunking sessions before. The Court of Appeal rightly pointed out that neither helps his case and in two separate considerations of the best possible presentation by his defence as to why the jury's verdict might be unsafe, a total of four judges rejected the appeal.
    Not necessarily, no. If she does, then only she knows the truth. But if she does remember then she either consented and regretted it, or consented to it when drunk even and woke up realising she made a big drunken mistake.

    If she doesn't remember - she is just assuming that waking up in bed with a bloke or two means that she was raped because she is terrified by the idea of having been a '****' or having consented to drunken sex and in feeling awfully guilty believes this to be rape so to make pretend that she feels better about it.

    Or she was raped
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by unprinted)
    On Thursday, yes. Meanwhile his campaign website has been monstering her for over a year. The apology is welcome, as far as it goes, but it's been a long time coming.



    Actually, the law means he can't do any work whatsoever, paid or unpaid, for the next two and a bit years without permission from his probation officer. He also can't spend a night anywhere without permission, or go abroad without permission (the latter only granted in exception circumstances, i.e. not 'I want to play a football match').

    He can also be sent back to prison at any point during that time. As someone sentenced to more than four years, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act will never apply to him. As a convicted rapist, there are dozens of jobs he is barred from. I don't know if he wanted to stay in football after his playing career, but that's gone: the vast majority of such jobs are now closed to him.
    Well to be fair if someone did le about getting rape they are a monster. Not saying it's right I chi just understand his reasoning
    Also he had been granted the right to play football as a career so I'm not sure what your point is?
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Jonn_Snowed)
    He denied that he raped her ans that she gave consent. God don't you understand the case??? He doesn't say what he did was right but rather he didn't do it. Ffs
    He never denied that he had intercourse with her...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    This situation is no different on any weekend night out in any town in England. Young pretty girl gets intoxicated, millions of blokes try it on with her .. she can take her pick and weed out who she wants and decide to bury them if she feels guilty for her carnal desires and '****' reputation.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    It's a case of "I didn't do it", not a case of "I did it and there's nothing wrong with that".
    Actually, it's a case of "I did this... what do you mean, that's rape?!"

    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    I don't think he ever denied actually having sex with her
    Nope. Had he done so, and McDonald not mentioned it, he'd have not been charged with rape because there was no forensic evidence that he did.

    This is one of the things he thinks is unfair, rather than karma in action.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    He never denied that he had intercourse with her...
    He denied that he raped her. He said they both had consented sex.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Given that he is convicted of doing it, as far as I'm concerned, he is claiming that he thought it was right.
    He is not claiming that though. He is claiming that he was wrongly convicted by disputing the court's understanding of the events that actually took place. He is not disputing what legally constitutes rape and what doesn't, or what morally constitutes right and wrong.

    I don't think he ever denied actually having sex with her, what he has always been denying is that it was rape.
    Yes, because he believes that the prosecution has failed to prove that she did not provide legally valid consent.

    He does not believe that having sex with someone who is so drunk that their consent is invalid is an acceptable thing to do; rather he believes that this is not what he did.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Jonn_Snowed)
    He denied that he raped her. He said they both had consented sex.
    Yes... which means he is refusing to accept responsibility for taking advantage of her when she was not able to give consent. As far as we are concerned, he is guilty. Which means that she was not able to give consent and he should have been able to realise that. Which means that he doesn't see anything wrong with taking advantage of someone who is clearly seriously drunk.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by le_darkhorse)
    This situation is no different on any weekend night out in any town in England. Young pretty girl gets intoxicated, millions of blokes try it on with her .. she can take her pick and weed out who she wants and decide to bury them if she feels guilty for her carnal desires and '****' reputation.
    Are you saying that there aren't rapist out there that rape people who are intoxicated (i.e the rapist knows the person they are raping is not in a fit state to consent)?


    Interesting how you jump to that conclusion.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Yes... which means he is refusing to accept responsibility for taking advantage of her when she was not able to give consent. As far as we are concerned, he is guilty. Which means that she was not able to give consent and he should have been able to realise that. Which means that he doesn't see anything wrong with taking advantage of someone who is clearly seriously drunk.
    No that's not it. He is saying that SHE GAVE CONSENT and she WAS ABLE TO DO SO. He maintains he didn't rape her it doesn't mean he isn't accepting responsibility but rather that he is innocent.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by unprinted)
    On Thursday, yes. Meanwhile his campaign website has been monstering her for over a year. The apology is welcome, as far as it goes, but it's been a long time coming.
    He has only made his apologies and other comments now, because under his legal advice he was not to discuss the events in question, so as not to adversely influence the outcome of his re-trial.

    Actually, the law means he can't do any work whatsoever, paid or unpaid, for the next two and a bit years without permission from his probation officer. He also can't spend a night anywhere without permission, or go abroad without permission (the latter only granted in exception circumstances, i.e. not 'I want to play a football match').

    He can also be sent back to prison at any point during that time. As someone sentenced to more than four years, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act will never apply to him. As a convicted rapist, there are dozens of jobs he is barred from. I don't know if he wanted to stay in football after his playing career, but that's gone: the vast majority of such jobs are now closed to him.
    The law does not prevent him from having a job right now. He is barred from many jobs, but playing football isn't one of them. Otherwise there would be no question of any football clubs trying to sign him because he wouldn't be allowed to play anyway.

    Actually, it's a case of "I did this... what do you mean, that's rape?!"
    I disagree. I've seen no indication that he's ever admitted that the woman he had sex with lacked the mental capacity to consent.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Jonn_Snowed)
    Well to be fair if someone did le about getting rape they are a monster.
    She didn't complain about being raped. She has consistently said that she doesn't remember what happened. As Evans volunteered that he had sex with her - without asking her if she wanted it - the police charged him with rape.

    After seeing and hearing all the evidence the prosecution and his defence wanted to give, the jury unanimously decided - rightly, in my view - that she was too drunk to consent, and the sex Evans said he had with her was rape because he didn't have any reasonable belief in her consent.

    Also he had been granted the right to play football as a career so I'm not sure what your point is?
    Someone else said...

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Once he is released from prison, it makes no difference whether he has learned his lesson or not; he is free to return to work. The courts of law have issued no court order against him playing football.
    .. so I pointed out the conditions of his release. If anyone will have him he is apparently currently allowed to play football, yes, but that permission can be withdrawn at any point in the next two and a bit years.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lent6)
    Are you saying that there aren't rapist out there that rape people who are intoxicated (i.e the rapist knows the person they are raping is not in a fit state to consent)?


    Interesting how you jump to that conclusion.
    The problem is what is considered a fit state to consent? If she is unconscious and barely able to talk yes but what if she can speak and walk how drunk is to drunk?
    If they consent with out bring drugged then is it rape?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lent6)
    Are you saying that there aren't rapist out there that rape people who are intoxicated (i.e the rapist knows the person they are raping is not in a fit state to consent)?


    Interesting how you jump to that conclusion.
    I never said there aren't. But the poster said that if you are intoxicated you are not in a fit state to consent (words to that effect) so by those terms, 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.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    He has only made his apologies and other comments now, because under his legal advice he was not to discuss the events in question, so as not to adversely influence the outcome of his re-trial.
    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.

    The law does not prevent him from having a job right now. He is barred from many jobs, but playing football isn't one of them. Otherwise there would be no question of any football clubs trying to sign him because he wouldn't be allowed to play anyway.
    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 disagree. I've seen no indication that he's ever admitted that the woman he had sex with lacked the mental capacity to consent.
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonn_Snowed)
    Futhermorr how was McDonald allowed free but no evidence Evans
    I think the fact that McDonald was acquitted can be understood as indicating that the court was ready to admit nuance and interpretation in the considering of the case, that this wasn't about a want to only bang up the footballer.

    The crucial difference between the two cases was that McDonald was able to plausibly claim that he - wrongly - felt that there was an implied consent, this because of, what wasn't disputed, her having agreed to go with him to his hotel room.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    Yes... which means he is refusing to accept responsibility for taking advantage of her when she was not able to give consent. I don't understand why you're getting so aggressive. As far as we are concerned, he is guilty. Which means that she was not able to give consent and he should have been able to realise that. Which means that he doesn't see anything wrong with taking advantage of someone who is clearly seriously drunk.
    It doesn't mean that at all. He does see something wrong with this, however he believes that he didn't do this (even if you believe he did). It's in the same way that, a convicted thief who protests his innocence does not think that "theft is legally/morally acceptable", he thinks "I didn't take the object" or "I took the object, but with the owner's permission".

    Let me ask you this: Suppose someone you've had consensual sex with in the past accused you of rape, and you were subsequently convicted of rape in court. What would you do? Would you not protest your innocence, and say "But the sex was consensual"? Do you not agree that it would be inaccurate for someone to then say "He sees nothing wrong with rape"?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Jonn_Snowed)
    The problem is what is considered a fit state to consent? If she is unconscious and barely able to talk yes but what if she can speak and walk how drunk is to drunk?
    From the original judge's summing up to the jury, as subsequently approved by the Court of Appeal:

    "A woman clearly does not have the capacity to make a choice if she is completely unconscious through the effects of drink and drugs, but there are various stages of consciousness, from being wide awake to dim awareness of reality. In a state of dim and drunken awareness you may, or may not, be in a condition to make choices. So you will need to consider the evidence of the ((woman's)) state and decide these two questions: was she in a condition in which she was capable of making any choice one way or another? If you are sure that she was not, then she did not consent. If, on the other hand, you conclude that she chose to agree to sexual intercourse, or may have done, then you must find the defendants not guilty."

    .. so by finding him guilty, the jury decided that, beyond any reasonable doubt, she was not capable of making such a choice when he had sex with her.

    (The second question, given that decision, was around whether or not each man's mistaken belief in her consent was reasonable or not.)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonn_Snowed)
    The problem is what is considered a fit state to consent? If she is unconscious and barely able to talk yes but what if she can speak and walk how drunk is to drunk?
    If they consent with out bring drugged then is it rape?
    No it's not rape If she seems to have reasonable awareness and is responding in a sexual manner.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 11, 2015
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.