But they would be guilty of it by your theory. I'd like to see you get a medical person to say what level of alcohol in the blood constitutes the amount required for sex to be rape.
What if someone was virtually unconscious, because they'd never drank before, but they were one point under your limit? Hard luck, it's not rape.
I'm happy for a jury to decide beyond reasonable doubt as to the guilt of someone who has been through the CPS criteria to warrant charging.
Of course they not guilty because there is no complaint.
Based on your theory we should get rid of drink drive limits as some people are capable of handling drink better than others. Maybe a jury should make decisions on drink drive based on CCTV footage after the arrest.
The reality is there seems to be no factual or expert evidence to support that the girl was incapable of consent. The jury can make mistakes and if people are so sure of Evans guilt then I assume factual or expert evidence is available to support there was little chance of her being able to consent.
You have to wonder if this important fact is incorrect on Ched's website, how much more on there is made up.
Also, I wouldn't take a newspaper report as gospel. Unless it's also stated clearly on the appeal transcript?
His website (rightly) isn't taken seriously on any other point, and I don't see why an exception should be made here. I doubt it was written by him or his legal team.
The appeal transcript states;
When she was asked if the applicant could join in, the complainant clearly replied "Yes"
True that doesn't make it exactly clear who asked her. But the newspaper reports directly quote both of them as saying that it was McDonald who asked her.
His website (rightly) isn't taken seriously on any other point, and I don't see why an exception should be made here. I doubt it was written by him or his legal team.
The appeal transcript states;
When she was asked if the applicant could join in, the complainant clearly replied "Yes"
True that doesn't make it exactly clear who asked her. But the newspaper reports directly quote both of them as saying that it was McDonald who asked her.
The only safe way for anybody to ensure they will not get caught and charged of being a rapist on a saturday night out is pretty much just fire up the computer and have a fap session or 3 hoping that you won't get anything from the fappening event as if a person can get drunk and give consent to sex but then wake up next morning and not remember the fact they gave consent you'll be looking at a long stretch at her majestys pleasure you can imagine going out 'on the pull' will lose its attraction very quickly
You have to wonder if this important fact is incorrect on Ched's website, how much more on there is made up.
Also, I wouldn't take a newspaper report as gospel. Unless it's also stated clearly on the appeal transcript?
Agreed. Another poster and I have already mentioned previously in this thread that the CCTV footage of the victim when she appeared drunk is not on the website. And I also mentioned how the content of a text the victim sent her friend is given, yet the website describes the text Clayton McDonald sent to Ched Evans as "words to the effect of 'I am with a girl'". If the site is supposed to be giving facts then it should say exactly what the text said, not describe it as "words to the effect of."
His website (rightly) isn't taken seriously on any other point, and I don't see why an exception should be made here. I doubt it was written by him or his legal team.
The appeal transcript states;
When she was asked if the applicant could join in, the complainant clearly replied "Yes"
True that doesn't make it exactly clear who asked her. But the newspaper reports directly quote both of them as saying that it was McDonald who asked her.
The website says it is the only official representation for him.
Taken from the bottom of the site's homepage:
This website is the only official representation for Ched and the content is managed by his friends and family. The majority of information contained on this site is already in the public domain, the evidence, having been given in an open Court of Law. Where information is referred to that was not admitted in evidence at the trial, the individuals providing the information gave sworn signed statements to the defence solicitors acting on behalf of Ched Evans during the trial and the appeal process. The only other dialogue is on Ched’s Facebook site.
That is a matter for a jury of twelve members of the public to decide. I merely stated the obvious: that Evans turning up in mid event, and one or other of them just asking that drunken girl if Evans could join in and getting a 'yes' or some variation of it, wasn't enough to cross the 'reasonable belief' threshold.
That is a matter for a jury of twelve members of the public to decide. I merely stated the obvious: that Evans turning up in mid event, and one or other of them just asking that drunken girl if Evans could join in and getting a 'yes' or some variation of it, wasn't enough to cross the 'reasonable belief' threshold.
It's just all so subjective. No wonder the lad is pissed off and protests his innocence.
Of course they not guilty because there is no complaint.
Based on your theory we should get rid of drink drive limits as some people are capable of handling drink better than others. Maybe a jury should make decisions on drink drive based on CCTV footage after the arrest.
The reality is there seems to be no factual or expert evidence to support that the girl was incapable of consent. The jury can make mistakes and if people are so sure of Evans guilt then I assume factual or expert evidence is available to support there was little chance of her being able to consent.
The drink driving limit makes it an offence to drive in excess of it. It doesn't take into account how affected by drink they are. Excess alcohol is the offence, and it is simple.
The drink driving limit makes it an offence to drive in excess of it. It doesn't take into account how affected by drink they are. Excess alcohol is the offence, and it is simple.
You cant have a limit for sex, it's stupid.
ah but in todays age i'd imagine that putting some sort of new labour rule on it would be seen to help solve the problem....would you get in a car if your partner was driving well if not then certainly don't try anything sexual as you may get raped technically as one party is above the limit for nookie
The drink driving limit makes it an offence to drive in excess of it. It doesn't take into account how affected by drink they are. Excess alcohol is the offence, and it is simple.
You cant have a limit for sex, it's stupid.
If I knock over a child and I have been drinking whether I'm over or under the limit will affect the charge and my likely guilt of the offence.
The jury do not rely on CCTV footage of me at the time or witneses commenting on my state at the time to decide whether I was capable or incapable of being behind a wheel.
Its common sense that where a person is alleging they are incapable of consenting that medical/expert evidence is provided to support that opinion and a guidance is used to decide the limit.
If there is no factual/expert evidence to support the girls in ability to consent then I cant see how a jury can determine that they are sure she was incapable of consenting.
Going forward we will be allowing women to sleep with men and wake up in the morning and say they do not remember anything it will then left down to a jury to decide whether the girl was capable or not based on little other than her word and may some witness evidence of whether she was drunk or not.
Finding someone guilty based on this does not make sense and clearly the law needs changing/ammending to give clear guidance on these types of cases.
Otherwise there are going to be a few other questionable decisions made
If I knock over a child and I have been drinking whether I'm over or under the limit will affect the charge and my likely guilt of the offence.
The jury do not rely on CCTV footage of me at the time or witneses commenting on my state at the time to decide whether I was capable or incapable of being behind a wheel.
Its common sense that where a person is alleging they are incapable of consenting that medical/expert evidence is provided to support that opinion and a guidance is used to decide the limit.
If there is no factual/expert evidence to support the girls in ability to consent then I cant see how a jury can determine that they are sure she was incapable of consenting.
Going forward we will be allowing women to sleep with men and wake up in the morning and say they do not remember anything it will then left down to a jury to decide whether the girl was capable or not based on little other than her word and may some witness evidence of whether she was drunk or not.
Finding someone guilty based on this does not make sense and clearly the law needs changing/ammending to give clear guidance on these types of cases.
Otherwise there are going to be a few other questionable decisions made
Exactly. The offence is driving over the prescribed limit, nothing to do with affect of alcohol on you.
You cannot put a limit like that on someones ability to consent after drinking, because everyone is different, and it is down to specific, individual circumstances.
You cant put a limit on consent, it is a subjective thing, and if in dispute, that is what juries are for.
ah but in todays age i'd imagine that putting some sort of new labour rule on it would be seen to help solve the problem....would you get in a car if your partner was driving well if not then certainly don't try anything sexual as you may get raped technically as one party is above the limit for nookie
Perhaps the police should have the power to breath test anyone suspected of having sex. That would increase the clear up rate for rape if there was a blood/alcohol limit.
Perhaps the police should have the power to breath test anyone suspected of having sex. That would increase the clear up rate for rape if there was a blood/alcohol limit.
It sounds ridiculous, but it's the way things are heading.
Perhaps the police should have the power to breath test anyone suspected of having sex. That would increase the clear up rate for rape if there was a blood/alcohol limit.
well it would certainly be interesting if consent was defined in terms for drunken consent so that once a person had over it they'd be considered legally unable to consent even a grope after 3 beers would get you 3 months and a knee trembler in the back alley would probably be worth about 10 years before parole
well it would certainly be interesting if consent was defined in terms for drunken consent so that once a person had over it they'd be considered legally unable to consent even a grope after 3 beers would get you 3 months and a knee trembler in the back alley would probably be worth about 10 years before parole
Clear up rates would soar, and the prisons would be full that's for sure. Trouble is the police, and prison officers would find most of themselves locked up too.
Clear up rates would soar, and the prisons would be full that's for sure. Trouble is the police, and prison officers would find most of themselves locked up too.
do the crime then do the time, probably would also reduce school numbers after a few years as most 18-25's would be in the nick not banging out kids every year but thats got to be balanced against the reduction in people going out and getting drunk as they don't want to be seen as a 3 beer rapist so the government will get billions less from the pub companies so we'll get something else taxed to high heaven that currently isn't
Exactly. The offence is driving over the prescribed limit, nothing to do with affect of alcohol on you.
You cannot put a limit like that on someones ability to consent after drinking, because everyone is different, and it is down to specific, individual circumstances.
You cant put a limit on consent, it is a subjective thing, and if in dispute, that is what juries are for.
Of course it does. I have dealt with motor claims and you have little chance of defending a claim if you have been done for drink driving.
The fact that you have maybe the best driver whilst drunk and the incident may not have been your fault will be of little benefit to you if you have bene convicted of drink driving.
When it comes down to it if consent is a subjective thing with no way of medically defining whether someone is capable of not when drinking, then no one can be reasonably sure whether someone is capable of consenting or not when drunk and therefore the law should be ammended to accept that if someone consents or gives the sign they are consenting then other party cannot be found guilty of rape
It would all seem to hinge on how out of it the girl was at the point she apparently said yes to #2 joining in, and how much credence is given to the expert who pointed out that memory loss the day after does not equate to lack of awareness at the time the act was carried out.
Based on what is effectively a tipping point the encounter moves swiftly from a grubby threesome that all were enthusiastically involved in, to a criminal act that requires at least one person to serve time in jail and lose his future career over, all of it based on how well the girl involved can convince a jury that she remembers nothing and wouldn't have consented to #2 joining in had she not been so out of it.
Perhaps the police should have the power to breath test anyone suspected of having sex. That would increase the clear up rate for rape if there was a blood/alcohol limit.
Why exactly? The issue would only come to head if a girl suggested similar circumstamces to Evan case. The police could then do a blood test and deterime whether its likely that the girl may have been too drunk to consent.
The then build a case and it goes to court. The jury can use the limit a base with all the other evidence to consider a conviction.
When it comes down to it if consent is a subjective thing with no way of medically defining whether someone is capable of not when drinking, then no one can be reasonably sure whether someone is capable of consenting or not when drunk and therefore the law should be ammended to accept that if someone consents or gives the sign they are consenting then other party cannot be found guilty of rape
Of course you can be sure that someone wasn't capable of consenting, if there is before-and-after evidence that, when it's all taken together, demonstrates it. That is what happened in this case.
Comments
Of course they not guilty because there is no complaint.
Based on your theory we should get rid of drink drive limits as some people are capable of handling drink better than others. Maybe a jury should make decisions on drink drive based on CCTV footage after the arrest.
The reality is there seems to be no factual or expert evidence to support that the girl was incapable of consent. The jury can make mistakes and if people are so sure of Evans guilt then I assume factual or expert evidence is available to support there was little chance of her being able to consent.
His website (rightly) isn't taken seriously on any other point, and I don't see why an exception should be made here. I doubt it was written by him or his legal team.
The appeal transcript states;
When she was asked if the applicant could join in, the complainant clearly replied "Yes"
True that doesn't make it exactly clear who asked her. But the newspaper reports directly quote both of them as saying that it was McDonald who asked her.
The only safe way for anybody to ensure they will not get caught and charged of being a rapist on a saturday night out is pretty much just fire up the computer and have a fap session or 3 hoping that you won't get anything from the fappening event as if a person can get drunk and give consent to sex but then wake up next morning and not remember the fact they gave consent you'll be looking at a long stretch at her majestys pleasure you can imagine going out 'on the pull' will lose its attraction very quickly
whats that got to do with anything? pretty sure he only did 4 years anyway
Agreed. Another poster and I have already mentioned previously in this thread that the CCTV footage of the victim when she appeared drunk is not on the website. And I also mentioned how the content of a text the victim sent her friend is given, yet the website describes the text Clayton McDonald sent to Ched Evans as "words to the effect of 'I am with a girl'". If the site is supposed to be giving facts then it should say exactly what the text said, not describe it as "words to the effect of."
The website says it is the only official representation for him.
Taken from the bottom of the site's homepage:
That is a matter for a jury of twelve members of the public to decide. I merely stated the obvious: that Evans turning up in mid event, and one or other of them just asking that drunken girl if Evans could join in and getting a 'yes' or some variation of it, wasn't enough to cross the 'reasonable belief' threshold.
It's just all so subjective. No wonder the lad is pissed off and protests his innocence.
The drink driving limit makes it an offence to drive in excess of it. It doesn't take into account how affected by drink they are. Excess alcohol is the offence, and it is simple.
You cant have a limit for sex, it's stupid.
ah but in todays age i'd imagine that putting some sort of new labour rule on it would be seen to help solve the problem....would you get in a car if your partner was driving well if not then certainly don't try anything sexual as you may get raped technically as one party is above the limit for nookie
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2805903/Ched-rapist-says-aunt-Relative-attacks-footballer-not-showing-remorse-believes-deserved-prison.html
If I knock over a child and I have been drinking whether I'm over or under the limit will affect the charge and my likely guilt of the offence.
The jury do not rely on CCTV footage of me at the time or witneses commenting on my state at the time to decide whether I was capable or incapable of being behind a wheel.
Its common sense that where a person is alleging they are incapable of consenting that medical/expert evidence is provided to support that opinion and a guidance is used to decide the limit.
If there is no factual/expert evidence to support the girls in ability to consent then I cant see how a jury can determine that they are sure she was incapable of consenting.
Going forward we will be allowing women to sleep with men and wake up in the morning and say they do not remember anything it will then left down to a jury to decide whether the girl was capable or not based on little other than her word and may some witness evidence of whether she was drunk or not.
Finding someone guilty based on this does not make sense and clearly the law needs changing/ammending to give clear guidance on these types of cases.
Otherwise there are going to be a few other questionable decisions made
Exactly. The offence is driving over the prescribed limit, nothing to do with affect of alcohol on you.
You cannot put a limit like that on someones ability to consent after drinking, because everyone is different, and it is down to specific, individual circumstances.
You cant put a limit on consent, it is a subjective thing, and if in dispute, that is what juries are for.
Perhaps the police should have the power to breath test anyone suspected of having sex. That would increase the clear up rate for rape if there was a blood/alcohol limit.
Would you have said the same about the Guildford Four? Or Timothy Evans? Or Barry George? Or Derek Bentley?
It sounds ridiculous, but it's the way things are heading.
well it would certainly be interesting if consent was defined in terms for drunken consent so that once a person had over it they'd be considered legally unable to consent even a grope after 3 beers would get you 3 months and a knee trembler in the back alley would probably be worth about 10 years before parole
Seriously, they're not.
Clear up rates would soar, and the prisons would be full that's for sure. Trouble is the police, and prison officers would find most of themselves locked up too.
do the crime then do the time, probably would also reduce school numbers after a few years as most 18-25's would be in the nick not banging out kids every year but thats got to be balanced against the reduction in people going out and getting drunk as they don't want to be seen as a 3 beer rapist so the government will get billions less from the pub companies so we'll get something else taxed to high heaven that currently isn't
Of course it does. I have dealt with motor claims and you have little chance of defending a claim if you have been done for drink driving.
The fact that you have maybe the best driver whilst drunk and the incident may not have been your fault will be of little benefit to you if you have bene convicted of drink driving.
When it comes down to it if consent is a subjective thing with no way of medically defining whether someone is capable of not when drinking, then no one can be reasonably sure whether someone is capable of consenting or not when drunk and therefore the law should be ammended to accept that if someone consents or gives the sign they are consenting then other party cannot be found guilty of rape
Based on what is effectively a tipping point the encounter moves swiftly from a grubby threesome that all were enthusiastically involved in, to a criminal act that requires at least one person to serve time in jail and lose his future career over, all of it based on how well the girl involved can convince a jury that she remembers nothing and wouldn't have consented to #2 joining in had she not been so out of it.
Why exactly? The issue would only come to head if a girl suggested similar circumstamces to Evan case. The police could then do a blood test and deterime whether its likely that the girl may have been too drunk to consent.
The then build a case and it goes to court. The jury can use the limit a base with all the other evidence to consider a conviction.
Of course you can be sure that someone wasn't capable of consenting, if there is before-and-after evidence that, when it's all taken together, demonstrates it. That is what happened in this case.