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

    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by le_darkhorse)
    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.
    I doubt that it's "almost all" - I don't know many friends of any gender who get so drunk they piss themselves while passed out and don't wake up - but lots of them have. Not all of them were raped by someone who then told police that they'd had sex with her without asking her first though.

    Can I ask if you've ever had sex with someone who was "extremely drunk"?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by unprinted)
    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.
    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. He knows it is wrong to have sex with someone who does not, or cannot consent, but believes that he didn't do this.

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

    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.
    This does not contradict what I said. Legally, it is currently possible for football clubs to sign him and for him to play for them (even if he needs permission).

    It seems hypocritical to me that people are unwilling to entertain the possibility that he is innocent because "The courts found him guilty, and we must assume the courts don't make mistakes", but 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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by le_darkhorse)
    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.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Username unknown)
    Hundreds of women probably ARE raped the every Friday and Saturday evening. That sentence was perfectly accurate.
    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?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by imapedo)
    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.
    One of the things he told police in his interview was, because of who he was, "if he wanted to have sex with a girl, there were plenty of opportunities for him to do so". This does beg the question of, if he wanted to have sex with a woman that night, why he felt it necessary to travel, with his brother and a friend, to the hotel so he could disturb McDonald have sex with this woman to do so...
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    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.
    Yes, 'obviously' people with mistaken but genuinely held beliefs find it hard to see that they were wrong. And he can't see why he was convicted (his belief wasn't reasonable) and McDonald was acquitted (his belief may have been), but that's part of the problem. Someone should have sat him down and explained it to him, rather than making his lawyers richer.

    (He may or may not want to know that prior to 2004, a genuinely held belief in consent was sufficient, no matter how unreasonable: the infamous case that led to the change involved the equivalent of him arriving, McDonald saying 'she will scream "NO!! STOP!!", but she doesn't mean it' and him having sex despite her actively resisting. For what should be obvious reasons, this was not thought to be a good position for the law to be in.)

    In short, his claim is that the jury were wrong - hence his wanting a retrial.
    He wants to be acquitted, not have a retrial!

    Alas, you don't get to have a series of trials until you get the verdict you want. You get one and in order to change a guilty verdict from that, you have to demonstrate that the verdict was unsafe. He failed to so for his appeal - even his own barrister gave up arguing one of the four reasons the very best legal advice Evans could get had come up with to persuade the Court of Appeal that it had been! So now, he's going down this route, but the only people who are going to benefit are the lawyers.

    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.
    I don't think his sentence was lenient - it was exactly the starting point in the sentencing guidelines for a single rape by a single offender.

    But a game that has a problem with misogyny at the highest levels - see the Richard Scudamore affair - needs to realise it's better off without having convicted and unrepentant* rapists playing it.

    * I'm not saying he's going 'I am glad I raped her', but that part of the reaction against him is that he doesn't see he anything wrong about what he did in terms of having sex with an extremely drunk woman without asking her in the circumstances of that night.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    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 a man and a woman, equally drunk, were to have sex with one another and neither of them would be forcing the other into sex/be able to say no because they were probably hardly aware of their actions. For this reason, I'm not sure it would count.

    However, if, for example a drunk man was forcing a drunk woman into sex then that would be rape. So if one if them is taking control of the other against their will, that is rape.

    If a woman forces a man or woman to have sex with her, it isn't normally classed as rape. It's sexual harassment/abuse instead. I don't know why this is and I think it's wrong and should be changed.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Drunk consent is consent. If she was in no mental state as you claim then she couldn't consent whether sober or drunk. Stop talking nonsense.

    -----

    Bree, R v [2007] CA

    ^[Consent - drunken consent is still consent]
    D had intercourse with V a 19 year old student at Bournemouth University, she claimed she was too drunk to give consent.

    Held: V was still capable of consenting to intercourse, even though she had drunk so much she was sick (she had drunk Red Bull and Vodka and cider).

    Not guilty
    Comment: This case further damages the government’s intention to drive up the number of convictions for rape following the passing of section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which says that a person consents if she agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice. It was thought that a very drunk person would not have lost capacity would not have consented and the defendant would be guilty (subject to having the necessary mens rea). Sir Igor Judge said, “…when someone who has had a lot to drink is in fact consenting to intercourse, then that is what she is doing, consenting: equally, if after taking drink, she is not consenting, then by definition intercourse is taking place without her consent.

    -----

    A drunken woman can still consent to sex, the Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.

    Three senior judges were giving reasons for clearing a 25-year-old man of raping a student, aged 19, after both had been drinking heavily.

    -----

    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. It is also likely that she was further intoxicated at this point as the drink might have kicked in later. What we do know is that there is no evidence of her consenting or willingly showing a desire to be with Evans. He did not enter the hotel with them. This can't be argued as her consenting to a threesome. In that case they'd have probably both got off but that is not what happened. Therefore the reverse burden of proof is on Evans to prove he had consent from the victim. Where is there any sign that Evans had consent? It is not on the victim to prove she was raped. Evans was naive, stupid and whilst it is not impossible that she is lying about not remembering things, again the onus is on him to prove that and he put himself in a vulnerable position that night. He also cheated on his partner and all in all, he only has himself to blame.

    Having said that I do believe he should be able to play again because he's served his time and regardless of whether you believe the sentence was long enough, that was the sentence given. I also believe the onus is on parents to ensure their children have good role models to look up to. If anything, I would use Ched as an example to educate a child about what a bad role model is and why what he did is wrong. I also believe he should be able to contribute tax to the system. Having said that I'd think it would be entirely reasonable for any future earnings of his to be deducted a percentage to support rape victims and that principle should be applied to any criminal that wants to reenter the profession of football. Also, as a footballer he should not be allowed to attend any events with children to promote the club or work in the community. He should merely be able to train and compete.

    Not all footballers are role models and to suggest they are is bad parenting. There is not one profession in the world where 100% of the professionals in that area are role models.

    You all seem to be forgetting that this has all passed through a court of law. All of the decisions were legally sound.
    You say this as if wrongful decisions are never made. Whilst I agree that Evans is guilty this sound bite means sod all.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    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.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Username unknown)
    Hundreds of women probably ARE raped the every Friday and Saturday evening. That sentence was perfectly accurate.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Is Ched Evans' conviction to be upheld because you think rape is more common than convictions for rape? I doubt you've even acquainted yourself with the case notes, and are just glad that someone had been convicted of rape, regardless of the likelihood of their guilt.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by le_darkhorse)
    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.
    Because of reverse burden of proof.

    ----

    [General defences – consent – statutory provision – reverse burden of proof]
    D had sexual intercourse with V whilst she was too drunk to give or deny consent.

    Held: Section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 put the burden on the defendant to show that consent had not been refused in circumstances in which it would be deemed that the victim had not the “freedom and capacity” to consent.

    Not guilty
    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).

    Prosecuting counsel’s statement in Swansea Crown Court that “drunken consent is still consent” demonstrates that the legislation has not settled the issue of consent laid out in the White Paper because the prosecution was not able to prove that sexual intercourse had taken place because the woman could not remember.

    This case occurred in the same week as an Amnesty International survey claims that the true extent of rape exceeds of 50,000 a year, compared with 12,000 reported rapes. The survey also showed that many people believe the victim’s behaviour can make partly to blame.

    It is submitted that both the judge and the prosecutor correctly interpreted the current law.

    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    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.
    Irrelevant. Even if she was in a mental state to consent the reverse burden of proof would be on Evans to prove she consented. Evans admitted to having sex yet couldn't prove consent was granted thus it was deemed rape. Had Evans and McDonald claimed Evans didn't have sex with her and they couldn't prove he had sex with her then he'd have probably been cleared. Instead, he admitted to having sex with her and at that point the burden of proof as to whether he got consent was on him to prove.

    I don't see how Evans or his defence will ever prove that he got consent from her. Only he or she has the answer to that or any hidden camera. Its her word vs his and if he can't prove he received consent then that is that.

    Anything Evans or McDonald claim in any appeal or retrial is not going to hold up. The strongest thing he has to go on is the alleged comments of **** me harder and other sexual comments which would prove she was aware of what was going on. Again, he would need to prove this.

    If I were defending him I'd use the fact he has been honest about deceiving the receptionist to gain room access and about having sex with her to try and convince the jury he is a truthful man. I'd look for evidence in the clubs to see if at any point she has eyed him up to try and manipulate the situation although gaining CCTV footage now is probably impossible and has been overwritten unless already obtained. If the alleged tweets can be proven where she comments about a mini I'd use that against her in court.

    The only way Ched has a chance of getting this overturned is by portraying himself as being honest (admitting to sex and deceiving the receptionist) and destroying her credibility. There is simply no way for them to prove consent unless they go all out for her and she then tells the truth under pressure.

    I think appeals have been thrown out before as they know the chances of the above happening are extremely slim.

    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Why do you think a person is liable for their actions when drunk?
    Because that's the law.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by unprinted)
    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.
    Evidence? Ched Evans' case has already been rejected for appeal twice. It seems unlikely that the justice system would allow him another chance of appealing his case a third time - and fast-tracking it at that - if there was not a good reason, as many commentators find there to be

    Here is the page for the CCRC.

    https://www.justice.gov.uk/about/cri...iew-commission
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    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.

    Do you believe the law(s) need reviewing? (As that is the only way he can possibly be cleared other than her telling admitting to lying and then stating he gave consent clearing his name).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Messiah Complex)
    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.
    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.

    His case is under review because the judicial judgements made upon his conviction were extremely tenuous. His team also has new evidence to bring forward.

    Do you believe the law(s) need reviewing? (As that is the only way he can possibly be cleared other than her telling admitting to lying and then stating he gave consent clearing his name).
    No, not really. It certainly isn't needed for him to clear his name.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Messiah Complex)
    Drunk consent is consent.
    Indeed it is. However, there's a dividing line between being drunk and having capacity and being drunk and not. (See the passage from the judge!) The jury certainly unanimously decided that the woman in this case was on the 'not' side of the line when Evans had sex with her.

    Evans' appeal complained that this was because the judge's directions to the jury failed to make the position clear, but the Court of Appeal rejected that completely.

    From their decision:

    "As it seems to us, ((the)) directions to the jury amply encapsulated the concept of the drunken consent amounting to consent. The judge did not use those express words; there was no obligation on him to do so. .. that he covered the concept of capacity and choice in his directions to the jury seems to us to be clear. The contrary is not arguable."

    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.
    Not quite.. McDonald was acquitted because the jury thought he may have had a reasonable belief in her consent - he had talked to her before, during, and after getting into the taxi to the hotel, for example.

    Evans however turned up later after being texted.
    .. and not to say 'come over'! But he did, and..

    At the point where he got involved she was allegedly in bed and then he started having sex with her.
    .. yes, when Evans unlocked the door with the key he had lied to obtain, McDonald was having sex with her. He soon stopped, noticed that Evans' brother and another man were outside the window trying to film what was going on, and closed the curtains.

    Evans had sex with her despite both men giving evidence that they didn't ask her if she wanted him to.

    It is very unlikely she was significantly more intoxicated between McDonald finishing having sex with her and Evans starting - we're talking a few minutes at most.

    What we do know is that there is no evidence of her consenting or willingly showing a desire to be with Evans.
    He says she "called out" "**** me harder" on "numerous occasions" but no-one gave evidence that they'd heard her, despite four men - McDonald, Evans' brother, the other friend, and the night porter - being in a position to do so at some point.

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

    all in all, he only has himself to blame.
    Definitely. He made a series of very bad decisions.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    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.
    You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

    He admitted to having sex with her so the onus of proof that he got consent was on him to prove. He couldn't prove that so it was deemed that, in the eyes of the law, he raped her. That's how rape laws work. I refer you to the two cases above which clearly states a reverse burden of proof is enforced and the defendent has to prove their was consent.

    His team couldn't provide enough evidence and thus it was deemed no consent was granted and she was raped. If you disagree with this conviction you disagree with the current implementation of the law as it stands as the conviction is solid, hence why appeals have been thrown out.

    '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).
    'It is submitted that both the judge and the prosecutor correctly interpreted the current law.'

    Ched admitted to having sex with her so it was on him to prove he had consent. He couldn't. In the eyes of the law he is guilty.

    If you disagree with the laws implementation that is fine. That is why they are open to be reviewed and questioned. This conviction however is solid.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by unprinted)
    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.
    Dougal, R v (2005) Swansea Crown Court

    '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).'

    It is submitted that both the judge and the prosecutor correctly interpreted the current law.


    In that case there was a not guilty verdict as they couldn't prove sex took place. In this case they could as Ched and McDonald admitted to it.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    Evidence? Ched Evans' case has already been rejected for appeal twice. It seems unlikely that the justice system would allow him another chance of appealing his case a third time - and fast-tracking it at that - if there was not a good reason, as many commentators find there to be
    Having seen their site, you should know that in nearly all cases, you only get to involve them if your normal appeal has been rejected.

    I would love to know why they're said to be fast-tracking it. Normally, as you will have seen, for obvious reasons people in prison (or on licence during a life sentence) get priority over those, like Evans, who are not. (Although they don't say they are anywhere I can see, so it may just be Evans' campaign telling the media that they are.)

    Most of the 'commentators' clearly haven't read the Court of Appeal decision, never mind much else.

    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    .. having sex with a woman who was probably intoxicated at the time ..

    Perhaps you should revise your knowledge of rape law before casting judgements.

    His case is under review because the judicial judgements made upon his conviction were extremely tenuous.

    His team also has new evidence to bring forward.
    Not just 'probably'. Every independent witness said she was "extremely drunk" and the jury must have decided, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she was indeed too intoxicated to have capacity to consent.

    So should you.

    They weren't. Even his own barrister didn't bother to argue the third of the four best reasons his lawyers could come up with to find the verdict unsafe. (He "rightly did not seek to rely on that evidence" says the Court of Appeal decision, which is judge-speak for 'thank you for not wasting our time with such rubbish.')

    I am really looking forward to seeing it...
 
 
 
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
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
  • 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.