The girl was unable to give consent as she was too drunk, anyone who thinks that because a girl is unable to say no that must mean it's a yes is a rapist if they decide to have their way with her
That's why evans is a rapist it's why he won't admit it and it's why the cretins who are saying what they are on line are also potential rapists
It makes you wonder how many would have the same view of their daughters if it was to happen to themore and if they would sit at home and say you deserved it
The girl was unable to give consent as she was too drunk, anyone who thinks that because a girl is unable to say no that must mean it's a yes is a rapist if they decide to have their way with her
That's why evans is a rapist it's why he won't admit it and it's why the cretins who are saying what they are on line are also potential rapists
It makes you wonder how many would have the same view of their daughters if it was to happen to themore and if they would sit at home and say you deserved it
When you are so drunk you cannot remember things. How can anyone be 100% certain that she through her drunkeness did say yes but she just cannot remember?
If she did say yes through her drunkeness does that mske it consential?
I suppose that is what Evans' counsel said and put to the dury prior to it's deliberations.
Now I am not saying that through her drunkeness that she said yes but just speculating what could have happened.
The girl was unable to give consent as she was too drunk, anyone who thinks that because a girl is unable to say no that must mean it's a yes is a rapist if they decide to have their way with her
That's why evans is a rapist it's why he won't admit it and it's why the cretins who are saying what they are on line are also potential rapists
It makes you wonder how many would have the same view of their daughters if it was to happen to themore and if they would sit at home and say you deserved it
When you are so drunk you cannot remember things. How can anyone be 100% certain that she through her drunkeness did say yes but she just cannot remember?
If she did say yes through her drunkeness does that mske it consential?
I suppose that is what Evans' counsel said and put to the dury prior to it's deliberations.
Now I am not saying that through her drunkeness that she said yes but just speculating what could have happened.
You've answered your own question there. Yes, that's what they would have tried and the jury still found him guilty "beyond reasonable doubt"
Trouble with speculating is that unless you were at the trial or have read the trial notes you and anyone else is speculating without the benefit of all the evidence for and against.
Think of how many young lads in Sheffield right now think because of what that awful website is saying, Women in general really are asking for it because they've had a drink etc etc.
It's not just Sheffield. The idea that women are up for it just because they have had a drink is not acceptable. There is a "but". When women are up for it (you think, according to their behaviour towards you) and have had a drink, should you always decline just in case? The only way to be 100% certain that you have not just met someone with the sort of issues that could lead to morning complications is to NEVER dip your tool with a stranger. You may be 100% certain you had consent, but that's not going to be the test if you get accused of taking advantage. Perhaps those young lads will reflect on whether it is better to keep it in their trousers?
if you don't know if a woman gives consent or not you must be absolutely terrible in the sack.
The rather stupid moronic angle evans is taking, by still pleading innocence and saying it was just an act of infidelity, is probably because he thinks it will work in his favor and people will back him on it by being overly stubborn and insistent, even after jail-time.
He should have just publicly said sorry to the girl and her parents and at least been a man about it.
People know the case and can make their own judgments on it but the blokes a d*ckhead.
Go on to read the comments as well, some quite interesting comments from a guy on there if you sort by "best."
Basically that's the old fashioned she was drunk, she went back with one footballer so it's ok the second one raped her, some girls do whatever they can to get with footballers it's ok this one was raped line, but given credence because it's written well with paragraphs and punctuation on the telegraph website.
It's one of the biggest loads of nonsense I've ever read.
Think of how many young lads in Sheffield right now think because of what that awful website is saying, Women in general really are asking for it because they've had a drink etc etc.
It's not just Sheffield. The idea that women are up for it just because they have had a drink is not acceptable. There is a "but". When women are up for it (you think, according to their behaviour towards you) and have had a drink, should you always decline just in case? The only way to be 100% certain that you have not just met someone with the sort of issues that could lead to morning complications is to NEVER dip your tool with a stranger. You may be 100% certain you had consent, but that's not going to be the test if you get accused of taking advantage. Perhaps those young lads will reflect on whether it is better to keep it in their trousers?
if you don't know if a woman gives consent or not you must be absolutely terrible in the sack.
In this case the woman was partially considered 'up for it' as McDonald was cleared of the charge, just not 'up for it' with Evans...
Think of how many young lads in Sheffield right now think because of what that awful website is saying, Women in general really are asking for it because they've had a drink etc etc.
It's not just Sheffield. The idea that women are up for it just because they have had a drink is not acceptable. There is a "but". When women are up for it (you think, according to their behaviour towards you) and have had a drink, should you always decline just in case? The only way to be 100% certain that you have not just met someone with the sort of issues that could lead to morning complications is to NEVER dip your tool with a stranger. You may be 100% certain you had consent, but that's not going to be the test if you get accused of taking advantage. Perhaps those young lads will reflect on whether it is better to keep it in their trousers?
if you don't know if a woman gives consent or not you must be absolutely terrible in the sack.
In this case the woman was partially considered 'up for it' as McDonald was cleared of the charge, just not 'up for it' with Evans...
which is fair enough, since she went to the hotel with mcdonald, not with evans
The girl was unable to give consent as she was too drunk, anyone who thinks that because a girl is unable to say no that must mean it's a yes is a rapist if they decide to have their way with her
That's why evans is a rapist it's why he won't admit it and it's why the cretins who are saying what they are on line are also potential rapists
It makes you wonder how many would have the same view of their daughters if it was to happen to themore and if they would sit at home and say you deserved it
When you are so drunk you cannot remember things. How can anyone be 100% certain that she through her drunkeness did say yes but she just cannot remember?
If she did say yes through her drunkeness does that mske it consential?
I suppose that is what Evans' counsel said and put to the dury prior to it's deliberations.
Now I am not saying that through her drunkeness that she said yes but just speculating what could have happened.
let's not forget entering the room illegally, filming the rape, escaping via the fire exit etc etc
To compare one rape to another is an age-old red herring.
Rape is sex (various acts) without consent. Full stop.
Some rapes are committed with physical violence (other than the rape itself). Some rapes are committed with threats. Some rapes are committed by virtue of a relationship of authority or power. Some rapes are committed upon victims who acquiesce out of fear. Some rapes are committed upon a victim who, despite surrounding circumstances and judgments that we may make about their intent (the "you went to a hotel room with a footballer what did you expect" argument) or their (God forbid) character, lack of capacity to consent.
There are, unfortunately, many other examples. Not all rapes (and, I understand very few) are committed by predators unknown to the victim lurking in the bushes.
The one common denominator? All rapes are without legal consent.
In my view, the key shift that has to occur is that we all need to stop teaching women how to "avoid" rape, and start teaching our boys that rape or sexual assault, in any context, is wrong. We, as men, need to be a part of the solution, and lead by example.
If there is any doubt about consent, at the very least, a terrible, terrible risk is being taken.
Go on to read the comments as well, some quite interesting comments from a guy on there if you sort by "best."
It's great to know that I'm not alone in the viewpoint I shared weeks ago. It's also pleasing to see that exactly the same word twisting, poor paraphrasing and general rubbish immediately followed. There really is no place for the opinion on the link on CL but good to know there is a place for it outside.
To compare one rape to another is an age-old red herring.
Rape is sex (various acts) without consent. Full stop.
Some rapes are committed with physical violence (other than the rape itself). Some rapes are committed with threats. Some rapes are committed by virtue of a relationship of authority or power. Some rapes are committed upon victims who acquiesce out of fear. Some rapes are committed upon a victim who, despite surrounding circumstances and judgments that we may make about their intent (the "you went to a hotel room with a footballer what did you expect" argument) or their (God forbid) character, lack of capacity to consent.
There are, unfortunately, many other examples. Not all rapes (and, I understand very few) are committed by predators unknown to the victim lurking in the bushes.
The one common denominator? All rapes are without legal consent.
In my view, the key shift that has to occur is that we all need to stop teaching women how to "avoid" rape, and start teaching our boys that rape or sexual assault, in any context, is wrong. We, as men, need to be a part of the solution, and lead by example.
If there is any doubt about consent, at the very least, a terrible, terrible risk is being taken.
No one is denying that, however, I don't think it's unwise to look at categorising rape in a similar way to other serious crimes. As the article points out, a sexual predator lurking in the shadows who assaults a lone woman in the park is quite clearly a different sort of crime to someone who had sex with a girl who has passed out. Yes, both rape in the eyes of the law, yes both an illegal act and yes both deplorable acts. However, to say there is no difference between the two is just wrong.
To compare one rape to another is an age-old red herring.
Rape is sex (various acts) without consent. Full stop.
Some rapes are committed with physical violence (other than the rape itself). Some rapes are committed with threats. Some rapes are committed by virtue of a relationship of authority or power. Some rapes are committed upon victims who acquiesce out of fear. Some rapes are committed upon a victim who, despite surrounding circumstances and judgments that we may make about their intent (the "you went to a hotel room with a footballer what did you expect" argument) or their (God forbid) character, lack of capacity to consent.
There are, unfortunately, many other examples. Not all rapes (and, I understand very few) are committed by predators unknown to the victim lurking in the bushes.
The one common denominator? All rapes are without legal consent.
In my view, the key shift that has to occur is that we all need to stop teaching women how to "avoid" rape, and start teaching our boys that rape or sexual assault, in any context, is wrong. We, as men, need to be a part of the solution, and lead by example.
If there is any doubt about consent, at the very least, a terrible, terrible risk is being taken.
No one is denying that, however, I don't think it's unwise to look at categorising rape in a similar way to other serious crimes. As the article points out, a sexual predator lurking in the shadows who assaults a lone woman in the park is quite clearly a different sort of crime to someone who had sex with a girl who has passed out. Yes, both rape in the eyes of the law, yes both an illegal act and yes both deplorable acts. However, to say there is no difference between the two is just wrong.
I said this weeks ago and got a load of abuse. Seriously, don't waste your time.
To compare one rape to another is an age-old red herring.
Rape is sex (various acts) without consent. Full stop.
Some rapes are committed with physical violence (other than the rape itself). Some rapes are committed with threats. Some rapes are committed by virtue of a relationship of authority or power. Some rapes are committed upon victims who acquiesce out of fear. Some rapes are committed upon a victim who, despite surrounding circumstances and judgments that we may make about their intent (the "you went to a hotel room with a footballer what did you expect" argument) or their (God forbid) character, lack of capacity to consent.
There are, unfortunately, many other examples. Not all rapes (and, I understand very few) are committed by predators unknown to the victim lurking in the bushes.
The one common denominator? All rapes are without legal consent.
In my view, the key shift that has to occur is that we all need to stop teaching women how to "avoid" rape, and start teaching our boys that rape or sexual assault, in any context, is wrong. We, as men, need to be a part of the solution, and lead by example.
If there is any doubt about consent, at the very least, a terrible, terrible risk is being taken.
No one is denying that, however, I don't think it's unwise to look at categorising rape in a similar way to other serious crimes. As the article points out, a sexual predator lurking in the shadows who assaults a lone woman in the park is quite clearly a different sort of crime to someone who had sex with a girl who has passed out. Yes, both rape in the eyes of the law, yes both an illegal act and yes both deplorable acts. However, to say there is no difference between the two is just wrong.
Are you asking for more linient sentences for people who commit rape like Ched did over say someone who committed rape in an alley way? And if so, why?
So still a group on here who thinks she got what she deserved
Yup. They aren't going to waste their time explaining their view point though.
Presumabley because there isn't enough time within their lifetime to come up with an actually logical explaination why they think that getting drunk is a crime punishable by rape.
To compare one rape to another is an age-old red herring.
Rape is sex (various acts) without consent. Full stop.
Some rapes are committed with physical violence (other than the rape itself). Some rapes are committed with threats. Some rapes are committed by virtue of a relationship of authority or power. Some rapes are committed upon victims who acquiesce out of fear. Some rapes are committed upon a victim who, despite surrounding circumstances and judgments that we may make about their intent (the "you went to a hotel room with a footballer what did you expect" argument) or their (God forbid) character, lack of capacity to consent.
There are, unfortunately, many other examples. Not all rapes (and, I understand very few) are committed by predators unknown to the victim lurking in the bushes.
The one common denominator? All rapes are without legal consent.
In my view, the key shift that has to occur is that we all need to stop teaching women how to "avoid" rape, and start teaching our boys that rape or sexual assault, in any context, is wrong. We, as men, need to be a part of the solution, and lead by example.
If there is any doubt about consent, at the very least, a terrible, terrible risk is being taken.
No one is denying that, however, I don't think it's unwise to look at categorising rape in a similar way to other serious crimes. As the article points out, a sexual predator lurking in the shadows who assaults a lone woman in the park is quite clearly a different sort of crime to someone who had sex with a girl who has passed out. Yes, both rape in the eyes of the law, yes both an illegal act and yes both deplorable acts. However, to say there is no difference between the two is just wrong.
Are you asking for more linient sentences for people who commit rape like Ched did over say someone who committed rape in an alley way? And if so, why?
At what point have I even suggested that?
This is why some people do not speak or write their feelings on the matter as some will see them as rapist sympathisers. You can still think all rape is disgusting and lengthy prison sentences are deserved yet feel there can be differences between rape crimes.
To compare one rape to another is an age-old red herring.
Rape is sex (various acts) without consent. Full stop.
Some rapes are committed with physical violence (other than the rape itself). Some rapes are committed with threats. Some rapes are committed by virtue of a relationship of authority or power. Some rapes are committed upon victims who acquiesce out of fear. Some rapes are committed upon a victim who, despite surrounding circumstances and judgments that we may make about their intent (the "you went to a hotel room with a footballer what did you expect" argument) or their (God forbid) character, lack of capacity to consent.
There are, unfortunately, many other examples. Not all rapes (and, I understand very few) are committed by predators unknown to the victim lurking in the bushes.
The one common denominator? All rapes are without legal consent.
In my view, the key shift that has to occur is that we all need to stop teaching women how to "avoid" rape, and start teaching our boys that rape or sexual assault, in any context, is wrong. We, as men, need to be a part of the solution, and lead by example.
If there is any doubt about consent, at the very least, a terrible, terrible risk is being taken.
No one is denying that, however, I don't think it's unwise to look at categorising rape in a similar way to other serious crimes. As the article points out, a sexual predator lurking in the shadows who assaults a lone woman in the park is quite clearly a different sort of crime to someone who had sex with a girl who has passed out. Yes, both rape in the eyes of the law, yes both an illegal act and yes both deplorable acts. However, to say there is no difference between the two is just wrong.
Are you asking for more linient sentences for people who commit rape like Ched did over say someone who committed rape in an alley way? And if so, why?
At what point have I even suggested that?
This is why some people do not speak or write their feelings on the matter as some will see them as rapist sympathisers. You can still think all rape is disgusting and lengthy prison sentences are deserved yet feel there can be differences between rape crimes.
So in what way will the difference be represented by law? Or will only be a moral difference when the offender is released from jail - ie we should not hate them as much as an alleyway rapist?
If there is to be a difference, how will it manifest itself?
Go on to read the comments as well, some quite interesting comments from a guy on there if you sort by "best."
It's great to know that I'm not alone in the viewpoint I shared weeks ago. It's also pleasing to see that exactly the same word twisting, poor paraphrasing and general rubbish immediately followed. There really is no place for the opinion on the link on CL but good to know there is a place for it outside.
No place for it on CL? Your post is still there I'm pretty sure. People disagreed with you, their posts are still there, space for everyone, surely?
Only the victim knows how traumatic an experience the rape has been.
Whether it happened in the "alleyway" situation or in a "date" situation the bottom line is that it is rape if a girl or bloke (it does happen) has been forced to have sex without consenting.
Being forced to do something against your will and being powerless to stop it is traumatic for the victim whatever the circumstances.
Go on to read the comments as well, some quite interesting comments from a guy on there if you sort by "best."
It's great to know that I'm not alone in the viewpoint I shared weeks ago. It's also pleasing to see that exactly the same word twisting, poor paraphrasing and general rubbish immediately followed. There really is no place for the opinion on the link on CL but good to know there is a place for it outside.
No place for it on CL? Your post is still there I'm pretty sure. People disagreed with you, their posts are still there, space for everyone, surely?
It's still there physically, but comments like 'you're a rapist sympathiser' (whatever that is) 'your opinion is stupid, offensive to all rape victims' and the (surely) purposeful misquoting of what I said into 'he's not a rapist', 'she was asking for it', countless flags and the most recent misquotes which proved my point nicely 'she got what she deserved' and 'if you get drunk you should be raped', let me know that any opinion that deviates however slightly from the general consensus will be followed by far more than, to quote you, "disagreeing".
To compare one rape to another is an age-old red herring.
Rape is sex (various acts) without consent. Full stop.
Some rapes are committed with physical violence (other than the rape itself). Some rapes are committed with threats. Some rapes are committed by virtue of a relationship of authority or power. Some rapes are committed upon victims who acquiesce out of fear. Some rapes are committed upon a victim who, despite surrounding circumstances and judgments that we may make about their intent (the "you went to a hotel room with a footballer what did you expect" argument) or their (God forbid) character, lack of capacity to consent.
There are, unfortunately, many other examples. Not all rapes (and, I understand very few) are committed by predators unknown to the victim lurking in the bushes.
The one common denominator? All rapes are without legal consent.
In my view, the key shift that has to occur is that we all need to stop teaching women how to "avoid" rape, and start teaching our boys that rape or sexual assault, in any context, is wrong. We, as men, need to be a part of the solution, and lead by example.
If there is any doubt about consent, at the very least, a terrible, terrible risk is being taken.
No one is denying that, however, I don't think it's unwise to look at categorising rape in a similar way to other serious crimes. As the article points out, a sexual predator lurking in the shadows who assaults a lone woman in the park is quite clearly a different sort of crime to someone who had sex with a girl who has passed out. Yes, both rape in the eyes of the law, yes both an illegal act and yes both deplorable acts. However, to say there is no difference between the two is just wrong.
Are you asking for more linient sentences for people who commit rape like Ched did over say someone who committed rape in an alley way? And if so, why?
At what point have I even suggested that?
This is why some people do not speak or write their feelings on the matter as some will see them as rapist sympathisers. You can still think all rape is disgusting and lengthy prison sentences are deserved yet feel there can be differences between rape crimes.
So in what way will the difference be represented by law? Or will only be a moral difference when the offender is released from jail - ie we should not hate them as much as an alleyway rapist?
If there is to be a difference, how will it manifest itself?
Given I have only ever studied contract law I don't feel I'm in a position to comment that well on the legal definitions that should be used but to me it would make sense to me to have something similar to robbery i.e. mugging, armed robbery, aggravated robbery. In that case most of us would agree that someone using a gun to rob an old lady is a more serious offence than a bag snatcher or pickpocket. Should rape always be rape then?
And before anyone gets too uptight I'm not comparing these to rape, I'm simply using them to illustrate that in the eyes of the law certain crimes can have different ways of categorising what essentially is the same offence.
At the moment I'm certain a judge will take into account the seriousness of the rape and what happened when deciding upon a sentence, that in a way is already classifying the type of rape it was.
On your moral question, well that's all down to your own morality. Personally, I already would not think of Ched Evans in the same light as a violent rapist but then it's obvious that plenty do. I also think that doing something along these lines would help clear up the "what job should he be allowed to do after being released?".
R v Millberry [2003] 2 Cr.App.R.(S) 31 Another previous guideline case. While the guidelines are replaced by those above the case is useful for its guidance on a range of different situations. It also states the courts should consider: The degree of harm to the victim The level of culpability of the offender The level of risk proposed by he offender to society
While rape will always be a most serious offence, it's gravity will depend very much upon the circumstances of the particular case.
The sentence that Evans got was thus less than the typical 'alleyway' rapist, where violence will have been used as well.
Comments
The girl was unable to give consent as she was too drunk, anyone who thinks that because a girl is unable to say no that must mean it's a yes is a rapist if they decide to have their way with her
That's why evans is a rapist it's why he won't admit it and it's why the cretins who are saying what they are on line are also potential rapists
It makes you wonder how many would have the same view of their daughters if it was to happen to themore and if they would sit at home and say you deserved it
If she did say yes through her drunkeness does that mske it consential?
I suppose that is what Evans' counsel said and put to the dury prior to it's deliberations.
Now I am not saying that through her drunkeness that she said yes but just speculating what could have happened.
Trouble with speculating is that unless you were at the trial or have read the trial notes you and anyone else is speculating without the benefit of all the evidence for and against.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11226209/Ched-Evans-Sorry-but-all-rapes-are-not-the-same.html
Go on to read the comments as well, some quite interesting comments from a guy on there if you sort by "best."
if you don't know if a woman gives consent or not you must be absolutely terrible in the sack.
He should have just publicly said sorry to the girl and her parents and at least been a man about it.
People know the case and can make their own judgments on it but the blokes a d*ckhead.
Well done Jess. Respect to her.
It's one of the biggest loads of nonsense I've ever read.
In this case the woman was partially considered 'up for it' as McDonald was cleared of the charge, just not 'up for it' with Evans...
which is fair enough, since she went to the hotel with mcdonald, not with evans
EDIT. Just had a look on twitter to see the response to the article, and pleased to see she is getting absolutely slated over it.
Rape is sex (various acts) without consent. Full stop.
Some rapes are committed with physical violence (other than the rape itself).
Some rapes are committed with threats.
Some rapes are committed by virtue of a relationship of authority or power.
Some rapes are committed upon victims who acquiesce out of fear.
Some rapes are committed upon a victim who, despite surrounding circumstances and judgments that we may make about their intent (the "you went to a hotel room with a footballer what did you expect" argument) or their (God forbid) character, lack of capacity to consent.
There are, unfortunately, many other examples. Not all rapes (and, I understand very few) are committed by predators unknown to the victim lurking in the bushes.
The one common denominator? All rapes are without legal consent.
In my view, the key shift that has to occur is that we all need to stop teaching women how to "avoid" rape, and start teaching our boys that rape or sexual assault, in any context, is wrong. We, as men, need to be a part of the solution, and lead by example.
If there is any doubt about consent, at the very least, a terrible, terrible risk is being taken.
Presumabley because there isn't enough time within their lifetime to come up with an actually logical explaination why they think that getting drunk is a crime punishable by rape.
This is why some people do not speak or write their feelings on the matter as some will see them as rapist sympathisers. You can still think all rape is disgusting and lengthy prison sentences are deserved yet feel there can be differences between rape crimes.
If there is to be a difference, how will it manifest itself?
Sheffield United sponsor BFN Nutrition, whose name is on 1st team training bibs, has severed ties with club over Evans stance.
Whether it happened in the "alleyway" situation or in a "date" situation the bottom line is that it is rape if a girl or bloke (it does happen) has been forced to have sex without consenting.
Being forced to do something against your will and being powerless to stop it is traumatic for the victim whatever the circumstances.
That is why Evans is regarded as such a scumbag.
And before anyone gets too uptight I'm not comparing these to rape, I'm simply using them to illustrate that in the eyes of the law certain crimes can have different ways of categorising what essentially is the same offence.
At the moment I'm certain a judge will take into account the seriousness of the rape and what happened when deciding upon a sentence, that in a way is already classifying the type of rape it was.
On your moral question, well that's all down to your own morality. Personally, I already would not think of Ched Evans in the same light as a violent rapist but then it's obvious that plenty do. I also think that doing something along these lines would help clear up the "what job should he be allowed to do after being released?".
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s1_rape/ The sentence that Evans got was thus less than the typical 'alleyway' rapist, where violence will have been used as well.