Bias? Get a grip. Some women don't help themselves by putting themselves in these positions, and the lack of prosecutions show that.
This case was a bit more than the normal situation, and they were predators, using their positions to influence a young drunken girl.
If you think such girls deserve that, then you probably behave like these blokes. Thankfully, I have better standards.
Have you read the evidence ? There is nothing to indicate they were predators. The young woman approached McDonald ( Evans' friend) as he was about to get into a taxi back to the hotel. She was eating a pizza, the driver asked her to sit in the front bacause he was worried about getting a mess on the back seats. She was apparently chatting away and laughing, certainly not totally legless or anything.
I'm not saying that what they did morally right, far from it. But the girl going back to a hotel in the early hours of the morning with a total stranger was also morally wrong.
It's the kind of thing you read about too often these days, programmes like Ibiza uncovered etc show that some people have little or no self respect, let alone any respect for others. But I still think, on the evidence given, it was a big leap to call it rape.
A two liner is so vague that it isn't even a scenario. The law on consent is complex, and the low number of prosecutions in these cases of drunken sex show that it is not abused.
However, if a girl is right out of it, a bloke taking advantage of that, and is not in a similar state, has responsibilities. Sorry you cant see that.
Still changing the scenario I see.
Two folk equally impaired through alcohol. Why is it that the responsibility is solely on the male?
Many people don't understand the nature of alcoholic blackouts where someone has no memory of his/her actions the next day.- they assume that the person must have been comatose or at least very obviously drunk but that's not necessarily so. I have a friend who drinks heavily and often forgets huge chunks of the evening, but she seems perfectly lucid at the time. I believe it's something to do with alcohol destroying brain cells.
While I agree that the behaviour of the two footballers was repellent I have problems with it actually being regarded as rape. Especially when one bloke is charged and not the other - who was the one who set up the situation in the first place.
TBH if something like this had happened to me when I was a young lass I would have chalked it up to experience and resolved to drink less.
Both were charged with rape, McDonald was found not guilty. Nearly everyone, even the prosecution, expected a similar verdict for Evans. The court were stunned when he was found guilty after that first verdict.
To be fair to the girl, I don't think she really wanted to bring the case, but the police were extremely enthusiastic. Probably wanted to make an example of them.
hence me constantly saying my scenario has nothing to do with the actualities of the Evans case but rather the consent law in general.
But you continue to ignore that. Why would that be?
Nothing to do with you being unable to take some kind of moral high ground to abuse other posters would it?
As for my behaviour - you really better watch how you phrase your statements there.
Libel is a serious crime.
Personally, i have passed up a number of 'opportunties' where a girl was off her face and making a pass at me so you may want to cast your accusations elsewhere.
Well done on behaving properly, it's a shame Evans didn't, then he wouldn't have been in prison.
This thread is about Evans, not a two line vague non scenario. If there is a case within those brief lines you want to discuss, start a thread.
That's total nonsense, and you know it. As a respected poster on here you should know better. You can question the outcome of this case without being a would-be rapist. I in no way condone the behaviour of any of the particpants in the case, but I do question the verdict.
The case was very unusual, you must admit that ? It was a sordid business nobody would deny that, but that doesn't make it rape. The young woman returned to the hotel with Evans' friend. That was done entirely voluntarily, we have the taxi drivers evidence. She walked into the hotel arm in arm with the guy, even returning to the taxi to pick up something she had forgot.
In the room she had sex with the friend, presumably this was consensual even in the eyes of the jury, they found him not guilty. Then Evans arrives after phoning his friend, the friend leaves and he proceeds to have sex with the woman. Evans leaves, by the fire escape as someone mentioned, because he didn't want to be recognised.
In the morning the young woman can't remember much about the night before and is more concerned about finding her handbag that is missing. She makes enquiries at reception and they fill her in on some of the details of her escapade the night before.
Presumably she finds out that the room had been let to a fairly well known footballer and some time later she contacts the police.
Evans and the friend are called in to be interviewed and they volunteer all the information thinking they've done nothing wrong . They are more worried about the grubby business becoming public, and Evans has a long term girlfriend who would not be amused The next thing they know, they are both charged with rape. The irony being that it was their statements that gave the police any case at all, the girl claims to have remembered nothing.
What I could never understand is how one participant could be found not guilty when Evans was convicted. The young woman claimed not to have given consent to either, so surely it should have been both guilty or both innocent ?
Clearly it did make it rape, because he was convicted, and the appeal found that the verdict was correct.
The difference with the other man is that the girl went to the hotel with him, and consent was implied through her actions, a situation that happens all the time.
He then got his mate involved, who sneaked in and out after the deed. He knew what he was doing, and took advantage. I think the first man was lucky to avoid being convicted of aiding abetting.
Have you read the evidence ? There is nothing to indicate they were predators. The young woman approached McDonald ( Evans' friend) as he was about to get into a taxi back to the hotel. She was eating a pizza, the driver asked her to sit in the front bacause he was worried about getting a mess on the back seats. She was apparently chatting away and laughing, certainly not totally legless or anything.
I'm not saying that what they did morally right, far from it. But the girl going back to a hotel in the early hours of the morning with a total stranger was also morally wrong.
It's the kind of thing you read about too often these days, programmes like Ibiza uncovered etc show that some people have little or no self respect, let alone any respect for others. But I still think, on the evidence given, it was a big leap to call it rape.
She went with one man, which is why he got off. Inviting another in later is what the case was about. I did read the evidence, and they were on the lookout for such a girl, and they seemed intent on sharing her. Fairly predatory action I would say.
Both were charged with rape, McDonald was found not guilty. Nearly everyone, even the prosecution, expected a similar verdict for Evans. The court were stunned when he was found guilty after that first verdict.
To be fair to the girl, I don't think she really wanted to bring the case, but the police were extremely enthusiastic. Probably wanted to make an example of them.
Really? Why did they prosecute then?
If it was so shocking a verdict, how come the Appeal Court upheld it?
Thought you would give up when confronted by logic.
No surprise there.
of course this thread, by extension, is about the law of consent.
Shame you feel that you aren't up to having a discussion about the law that underpinned the case.
No surprise there.
If you think the law on consent is worthy of a thread, feel free to start one.
Your two liner non scenario gives no details of anything specific, and I've already said it is nigh on unheard of for anyone to be prosecuted in such an event, so why keep going on about it?
Footballer Ched Evans has launched a fresh bid to get his rape conviction overturned.
Judges refused to give leave to an appeal in 2012 and threw out his application to have his sentence cut.
The Court of Appeal heard the evidence, and refused him the appeal, which means going back to trial. They are in real terms saying the conviction, and sentence were right.
Rejecting the conviction challenge by Evans, Lord Judge, said: "We can see no possible basis which would justify us interfering with the verdict of the jury, which heard all the evidence and reflected on it after careful summing up by the judge."
If you think the law on consent is worthy of a thread, feel free to start one.
Your two liner non scenario gives no details of anything specific, and I've already said it is nigh on unheard of for anyone to be prosecuted in such an event, so why keep going on about it?
The discussion is about Evans case.
Which comes down to consent when drunk.
Have you heard of logic and philosophy? You can distill a legal issue right down to the bare bones but you would rather try and muddy the waters by bringing in what in logical terms are incidental details.
The Court of Appeal heard the evidence, and refused him the appeal, which means going back to trial. They are in real terms saying the conviction, and sentence were right.
As no new evidence has been presented and nothing technically was wrong then they can't grant an appeal.
Hence Evans taking the case to the CCRC.
To be honest I doubt he will get much traction with that either,
She went with one man, which is why he got off. Inviting another in later is what the case was about. I did read the evidence, and they were on the lookout for such a girl, and they seemed intent on sharing her. Fairly predatory action I would say.
Totally agree. It would have been impossible to convict him of rape for his own encounter, but he certainly aided and abetted Evans.
Why do you say that it would have been impossible to convict the first guy (which suggests you agree that there was no evidence of non-consent) but then contradict that by saying things like "he got off" he was "predatory" and that you would have convicted him?
Clearly it did make it rape, because he was convicted, and the appeal found that the verdict was correct.
The difference with the other man is that the girl went to the hotel with him, and consent was implied through her actions, a situation that happens all the time.
He then got his mate involved, who sneaked in and out after the deed. He knew what he was doing, and took advantage. I think the first man was lucky to avoid being convicted of aiding abetting.
It strikes me that this is a very murky area. Assuming that she was sober enough to consent to sex with the first young man I can see why he would be found not guilty of rape - with regard to having sex with her himself, but I don't see how the court could treat the second act as something which was the sole responsibility of his mate - who as you say he got to sneak in and do the deed. If someone held a girl down while his friend raped her he would be found guilty of rape himself, I don't see a lot of difference here TBH. Not only did he not stop his friend having sex with the supposedly non-consenting girl, he actually encouraged it.
She went with one man, which is why he got off. Inviting another in later is what the case was about. I did read the evidence, and they were on the lookout for such a girl, and they seemed intent on sharing her. Fairly predatory action I would say.
I don't know what you read, but there was no evidence to indicate they had planned to pick up a girl. McDonald had been involved in a fracas in the street, he went to get a taxi on his own. The girl had been in a kebab shop and approached him. Evans had taken another taxi with two other friends, there was no "conspiracy". The girl had been drinking but wasn't incapable, it just turned into one of those sordid episodes that happen somewhere every weekend of the year. Two young men and one young woman all guilty of behaviour that most people would find morally repulsive.
If you are going to deny one ex-con the opportunity to resume his career after serving his time then your going to have to deny all of them, because if not it looks like your singling out this guy for double punishment. The fact that he is likely to earn a good living is irrelevant really. He's served his time.
Let's get this in perspective. This dude isn't going to end up at Man United. He was a third tier footballer before the conviction and he will be so after. He will be a man in his late 20's starting over again in a career where most people are finished at 33. He's wasted two of the best years of his career. And he has no-one to blame but himself.
Comments
Have you read the evidence ? There is nothing to indicate they were predators. The young woman approached McDonald ( Evans' friend) as he was about to get into a taxi back to the hotel. She was eating a pizza, the driver asked her to sit in the front bacause he was worried about getting a mess on the back seats. She was apparently chatting away and laughing, certainly not totally legless or anything.
I'm not saying that what they did morally right, far from it. But the girl going back to a hotel in the early hours of the morning with a total stranger was also morally wrong.
It's the kind of thing you read about too often these days, programmes like Ibiza uncovered etc show that some people have little or no self respect, let alone any respect for others. But I still think, on the evidence given, it was a big leap to call it rape.
Still changing the scenario I see.
Two folk equally impaired through alcohol. Why is it that the responsibility is solely on the male?
Both were charged with rape, McDonald was found not guilty. Nearly everyone, even the prosecution, expected a similar verdict for Evans. The court were stunned when he was found guilty after that first verdict.
To be fair to the girl, I don't think she really wanted to bring the case, but the police were extremely enthusiastic. Probably wanted to make an example of them.
Totally agree. It would have been impossible to convict him of rape for his own encounter, but he certainly aided and abetted Evans.
Well done on behaving properly, it's a shame Evans didn't, then he wouldn't have been in prison.
This thread is about Evans, not a two line vague non scenario. If there is a case within those brief lines you want to discuss, start a thread.
Clearly it did make it rape, because he was convicted, and the appeal found that the verdict was correct.
The difference with the other man is that the girl went to the hotel with him, and consent was implied through her actions, a situation that happens all the time.
He then got his mate involved, who sneaked in and out after the deed. He knew what he was doing, and took advantage. I think the first man was lucky to avoid being convicted of aiding abetting.
She went with one man, which is why he got off. Inviting another in later is what the case was about. I did read the evidence, and they were on the lookout for such a girl, and they seemed intent on sharing her. Fairly predatory action I would say.
Really? Why did they prosecute then?
If it was so shocking a verdict, how come the Appeal Court upheld it?
Thought you would give up when confronted by logic.
No surprise there.
of course this thread, by extension, is about the law of consent.
Shame you feel that you aren't up to having a discussion about the law that underpinned the case.
No surprise there.
Both getting tried at the same time perhaps and one verdict is given before the other?
Was the case retried or was he refused leave of appeal?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-28385532
19 July 2014 Last updated at 14:53
Footballer Ched Evans has launched a fresh bid to get his rape conviction overturned.
Judges refused to give leave to an appeal in 2012 and threw out his application to have his sentence cut.
If you think the law on consent is worthy of a thread, feel free to start one.
Your two liner non scenario gives no details of anything specific, and I've already said it is nigh on unheard of for anyone to be prosecuted in such an event, so why keep going on about it?
The discussion is about Evans case.
The Court of Appeal heard the evidence, and refused him the appeal, which means going back to trial. They are in real terms saying the conviction, and sentence were right.
Which comes down to consent when drunk.
Have you heard of logic and philosophy? You can distill a legal issue right down to the bare bones but you would rather try and muddy the waters by bringing in what in logical terms are incidental details.
I wonder why.
As no new evidence has been presented and nothing technically was wrong then they can't grant an appeal.
Hence Evans taking the case to the CCRC.
To be honest I doubt he will get much traction with that either,
Why do you say that it would have been impossible to convict the first guy (which suggests you agree that there was no evidence of non-consent) but then contradict that by saying things like "he got off" he was "predatory" and that you would have convicted him?
It strikes me that this is a very murky area. Assuming that she was sober enough to consent to sex with the first young man I can see why he would be found not guilty of rape - with regard to having sex with her himself, but I don't see how the court could treat the second act as something which was the sole responsibility of his mate - who as you say he got to sneak in and do the deed. If someone held a girl down while his friend raped her he would be found guilty of rape himself, I don't see a lot of difference here TBH. Not only did he not stop his friend having sex with the supposedly non-consenting girl, he actually encouraged it.
I don't know what you read, but there was no evidence to indicate they had planned to pick up a girl. McDonald had been involved in a fracas in the street, he went to get a taxi on his own. The girl had been in a kebab shop and approached him. Evans had taken another taxi with two other friends, there was no "conspiracy". The girl had been drinking but wasn't incapable, it just turned into one of those sordid episodes that happen somewhere every weekend of the year. Two young men and one young woman all guilty of behaviour that most people would find morally repulsive.
Let's get this in perspective. This dude isn't going to end up at Man United. He was a third tier footballer before the conviction and he will be so after. He will be a man in his late 20's starting over again in a career where most people are finished at 33. He's wasted two of the best years of his career. And he has no-one to blame but himself.
Enjoy your Thursday nights at Rochdale Ched!