My understanding is that Ched Evans was found guilty of rape on the basis that the girl in question was deemed too intoxicated to give her consent, rather than whether she gave consent or not. That to me is a very grey area. It's never happened to me personally, but I know people who have been on a heavy night out, got shitfaced & woke up in the morning in bed with someone with no recollection of how they got there or what happened. Technically, they're all guilty of rape. Very grey area in my opinion.
There's no suggestion that Ched Evans was drunk.
Ched Evans did not take the woman home. Clayton McDonald did. Evans appeared later.
I know that. The point I was making is the girl was deemed too drunk to give consent, rather than whether she gave consent to Evans, which I believe is a grey area
I am sure that, whatever the outcome, Ched Evans will not give a toss about what any of us think.
But is lack of consent due to intoxication really a grey area?
It is the circumstance of each alleged offence that has to be taken into consideration. Hopefully, at the retrial the evidence will be fully reviewed and the jury will come to a clear decision.
In the vast majority of cases, where both parties are too pissed to remember, there is absolutely no chance of any kind of criminal prosecution happening.
However, I'm not sure that someone being incapable of giving consent, by virtue of intoxication or any other reason, should not be afforded protection by the law. It's the same principle that means that sex with anyone one day shy of their sixteenth birthday (even where totally consensual) is still rape.
If the girl was as intoxicated as was suggested, including in the CCTV footage, it is hard to assume that she would have been in any condition to give an informed consent. As you say, both men involved were lacking in morals, but I would ask the question: if it was any of our sisters, daughters or nieces who were (shall we say) taken advantage of - even if only in such a state of inebriation where inhibitions were lowered - would we still view it as a grey area?
But then, I wonder whether the reaction to the case is due to the fact that, unlike the victim in the recent Stanford case, she was not able to make an impassioned victim's statement to express how the events of the night had affected her.
As an aside, I can guarantee that the defence team at the retrial will seek to completely destroy the reputation of the alleged victim (as will have already been done), and the actions of Ched Evans' supporters in placing her identity in the public domain was not just a contempt of court but utterly reprehensible.
Sorry, I get a bit judgemental (incidentally, my 2000 AD alter ego).
To play devils advocate; I've been absolutely blasted and been taken home by a fat bird before who I would never in a million years have shagged if I wasn't smashed. Does this rule only work one way or am I a rape victim?
KHA - whichever way this goes you can hardly say " have women throw themselves at him". That was clearly not the case. Dreadful person and I hope the Spirite fans manage to get their board to see sense.
Sorry I mightn't have been clear. I was referring to the fact that many footballers will cheat on their girlfriends/wives and take part in things that would make them seem unsuitable in the eyes of their partner's father.
I was trying to make the point that his behaviour, all be it unacceptable, does not make him the only footballer (or man for that matter) with questionable morals. If the statistics of infidelity are to be believed there are hundreds of thousands of men that have questionable morals.
I knew many, many people at university that had more than one sexual partner in a night. Whole parties were arranged for that specific purpose and if I told you where some of these people now work you would be horrified. What this has in common is that Ched Evans was about the same age as most students, yet we don't question what happens in halls of residence because there are no millionaire footballers living in them.
To play devils advocate; I've been absolutely blasted and been taken home by a fat bird before who I would never in a million years have shagged if I wasn't smashed. Does this rule only work one way or am I a rape victim?
It depends, did she go to town on you with a strap on ?
To play devils advocate; I've been absolutely blasted and been taken home by a fat bird before who I would never in a million years have shagged if I wasn't smashed. Does this rule only work one way or am I a rape victim?
I am sure that, whatever the outcome, Ched Evans will not give a toss about what any of us think.
But is lack of consent due to intoxication really a grey area?
It is the circumstance of each alleged offence that has to be taken into consideration. Hopefully, at the retrial the evidence will be fully reviewed and the jury will come to a clear decision.
In the vast majority of cases, where both parties are too pissed to remember, there is absolutely no chance of any kind of criminal prosecution happening.
However, I'm not sure that someone being incapable of giving consent, by virtue of intoxication or any other reason, should not be afforded protection by the law. It's the same principle that means that sex with anyone one day shy of their sixteenth birthday (even where totally consensual) is still rape.
If the girl was as intoxicated as was suggested, including in the CCTV footage, it is hard to assume that she would have been in any condition to give an informed consent. As you say, both men involved were lacking in morals, but I would ask the question: if it was any of our sisters, daughters or nieces who were (shall we say) taken advantage of - even if only in such a state of inebriation where inhibitions were lowered - would we still view it as a grey area?
But then, I wonder whether the reaction to the case is due to the fact that, unlike the victim in the recent Stanford case, she was not able to make an impassioned victim's statement to express how the events of the night had affected her.
As an aside, I can guarantee that the defence team at the retrial will seek to completely destroy the reputation of the alleged victim (as will have already been done), and the actions of Ched Evans' supporters in placing her identity in the public domain was not just a contempt of court but utterly reprehensible.
Sorry, I get a bit judgemental (incidentally, my 2000 AD alter ego).
But this is the problem. How many times have you done something when drunk but have absolutely no recollection the next morning? You may have had every intention of doing what you did at the time but you just can't remember it.
And also, I wonder how many times any of us have actually asked for consent before sex? It's usually always implied rather than formally given. That's where I think the law has to be altered somehow.
I am sure that, whatever the outcome, Ched Evans will not give a toss about what any of us think.
But is lack of consent due to intoxication really a grey area?
It is the circumstance of each alleged offence that has to be taken into consideration. Hopefully, at the retrial the evidence will be fully reviewed and the jury will come to a clear decision.
In the vast majority of cases, where both parties are too pissed to remember, there is absolutely no chance of any kind of criminal prosecution happening.
However, I'm not sure that someone being incapable of giving consent, by virtue of intoxication or any other reason, should not be afforded protection by the law. It's the same principle that means that sex with anyone one day shy of their sixteenth birthday (even where totally consensual) is still rape.
If the girl was as intoxicated as was suggested, including in the CCTV footage, it is hard to assume that she would have been in any condition to give an informed consent. As you say, both men involved were lacking in morals, but I would ask the question: if it was any of our sisters, daughters or nieces who were (shall we say) taken advantage of - even if only in such a state of inebriation where inhibitions were lowered - would we still view it as a grey area?
But then, I wonder whether the reaction to the case is due to the fact that, unlike the victim in the recent Stanford case, she was not able to make an impassioned victim's statement to express how the events of the night had affected her.
As an aside, I can guarantee that the defence team at the retrial will seek to completely destroy the reputation of the alleged victim (as will have already been done), and the actions of Ched Evans' supporters in placing her identity in the public domain was not just a contempt of court but utterly reprehensible.
Sorry, I get a bit judgemental (incidentally, my 2000 AD alter ego).
But this is the problem. How many times have you done something when drunk but have absolutely no recollection the next morning? You may have had every intention of doing what you did at the time but you just can't remember it.
And also, I wonder how many times any of us have actually asked for consent before sex? It's usually always implied rather than formally given. That's where I think the law has to be altered somehow.
Don't you have a pre-polulated form for him/her to sign next to the condom in your wallet?
My understanding is that Ched Evans was found guilty of rape on the basis that the girl in question was deemed too intoxicated to give her consent, rather than whether she gave consent or not. That to me is a very grey area. It's never happened to me personally, but I know people who have been on a heavy night out, got shitfaced & woke up in the morning in bed with someone with no recollection of how they got there or what happened. Technically, they're all guilty of rape. Very grey area in my opinion.
There's no suggestion that Ched Evans was drunk.
Ched Evans did not take the woman home. Clayton McDonald did. Evans appeared later.
I know that. The point I was making is the girl was deemed too drunk to give consent, rather than whether she gave consent to Evans, which I believe is a grey area
Maybe I misunderstood you.
You said
"It's never happened to me personally, but I know people who have been on a heavy night out, got shitfaced & woke up in the morning in bed with someone with no recollection of how they got there or what happened. Technically, they're all guilty of rape. Very grey area in my opinion."
Who is the "they" in bold? The people you know? Or the people they woke up with?
My understanding is that Ched Evans was found guilty of rape on the basis that the girl in question was deemed too intoxicated to give her consent, rather than whether she gave consent or not. That to me is a very grey area. It's never happened to me personally, but I know people who have been on a heavy night out, got shitfaced & woke up in the morning in bed with someone with no recollection of how they got there or what happened. Technically, they're all guilty of rape. Very grey area in my opinion.
There's no suggestion that Ched Evans was drunk.
Ched Evans did not take the woman home. Clayton McDonald did. Evans appeared later.
I know that. The point I was making is the girl was deemed too drunk to give consent, rather than whether she gave consent to Evans, which I believe is a grey area
Maybe I misunderstood you.
You said
"It's never happened to me personally, but I know people who have been on a heavy night out, got shitfaced & woke up in the morning in bed with someone with no recollection of how they got there or what happened. Technically, they're all guilty of rape. Very grey area in my opinion."
Who is the "they" in bold? The people you know? Or the people they woke up with?
That's the point. In my view the answer is neither
I am sure that, whatever the outcome, Ched Evans will not give a toss about what any of us think.
But is lack of consent due to intoxication really a grey area?
It is the circumstance of each alleged offence that has to be taken into consideration. Hopefully, at the retrial the evidence will be fully reviewed and the jury will come to a clear decision.
In the vast majority of cases, where both parties are too pissed to remember, there is absolutely no chance of any kind of criminal prosecution happening.
However, I'm not sure that someone being incapable of giving consent, by virtue of intoxication or any other reason, should not be afforded protection by the law. It's the same principle that means that sex with anyone one day shy of their sixteenth birthday (even where totally consensual) is still rape.
If the girl was as intoxicated as was suggested, including in the CCTV footage, it is hard to assume that she would have been in any condition to give an informed consent. As you say, both men involved were lacking in morals, but I would ask the question: if it was any of our sisters, daughters or nieces who were (shall we say) taken advantage of - even if only in such a state of inebriation where inhibitions were lowered - would we still view it as a grey area?
But then, I wonder whether the reaction to the case is due to the fact that, unlike the victim in the recent Stanford case, she was not able to make an impassioned victim's statement to express how the events of the night had affected her.
As an aside, I can guarantee that the defence team at the retrial will seek to completely destroy the reputation of the alleged victim (as will have already been done), and the actions of Ched Evans' supporters in placing her identity in the public domain was not just a contempt of court but utterly reprehensible.
Sorry, I get a bit judgemental (incidentally, my 2000 AD alter ego).
But this is the problem. How many times have you done something when drunk but have absolutely no recollection the next morning? You may have had every intention of doing what you did at the time but you just can't remember it.
And also, I wonder how many times any of us have actually asked for consent before sex? It's usually always implied rather than formally given. That's where I think the law has to be altered somehow.
Don't you have a pre-polulated form for him/her to sign next to the condom in your wallet?
I am sure that, whatever the outcome, Ched Evans will not give a toss about what any of us think.
But is lack of consent due to intoxication really a grey area?
It is the circumstance of each alleged offence that has to be taken into consideration. Hopefully, at the retrial the evidence will be fully reviewed and the jury will come to a clear decision.
In the vast majority of cases, where both parties are too pissed to remember, there is absolutely no chance of any kind of criminal prosecution happening.
However, I'm not sure that someone being incapable of giving consent, by virtue of intoxication or any other reason, should not be afforded protection by the law. It's the same principle that means that sex with anyone one day shy of their sixteenth birthday (even where totally consensual) is still rape.
If the girl was as intoxicated as was suggested, including in the CCTV footage, it is hard to assume that she would have been in any condition to give an informed consent. As you say, both men involved were lacking in morals, but I would ask the question: if it was any of our sisters, daughters or nieces who were (shall we say) taken advantage of - even if only in such a state of inebriation where inhibitions were lowered - would we still view it as a grey area?
But then, I wonder whether the reaction to the case is due to the fact that, unlike the victim in the recent Stanford case, she was not able to make an impassioned victim's statement to express how the events of the night had affected her.
As an aside, I can guarantee that the defence team at the retrial will seek to completely destroy the reputation of the alleged victim (as will have already been done), and the actions of Ched Evans' supporters in placing her identity in the public domain was not just a contempt of court but utterly reprehensible.
Sorry, I get a bit judgemental (incidentally, my 2000 AD alter ego).
But this is the problem. How many times have you done something when drunk but have absolutely no recollection the next morning? You may have had every intention of doing what you did at the time but you just can't remember it.
And also, I wonder how many times any of us have actually asked for consent before sex? It's usually always implied rather than formally given. That's where I think the law has to be altered somehow.
But I think that the CCTV evidence was key in the original trial (as was, I understand, the text to Evans). From what I have read, and I am not privy to the finer details of the case (nor do I want to be), Evans was not in a similar state to the girl - I would have been very surprised if there would have been any prosecution if both parties were equally inebriated.
I don't actually think that the law needs to be changed. This case wasn't about normal, after a few beers sex, where you both get caught up in the "moment". The case rested on the argument that the girl was either so drunk that she was effectively comatose or, as she herself believed (at least in the immediate aftermath), she had been slipped something in her drinks.
It may, or may not, be that this argument will stand up to further scrutiny at the retrial (or whether the girl will be prepared to go through it all again); however, IMHO, the legal interpretation of someone capable of deciding to have sexual intercourse having that intercourse with an individual who is, at that time, incapable of making such a decision (whether on the grounds of age or intoxication, etc.) is entirely reasonable.
To play devils advocate; I've been absolutely blasted and been taken home by a fat bird before who I would never in a million years have shagged if I wasn't smashed. Does this rule only work one way or am I a rape victim?
It depends, did she go to town on you with a strap on ?
My understanding is that Ched Evans was found guilty of rape on the basis that the girl in question was deemed too intoxicated to give her consent, rather than whether she gave consent or not. That to me is a very grey area. It's never happened to me personally, but I know people who have been on a heavy night out, got shitfaced & woke up in the morning in bed with someone with no recollection of how they got there or what happened. Technically, they're all guilty of rape. Very grey area in my opinion.
There's no suggestion that Ched Evans was drunk.
Ched Evans did not take the woman home. Clayton McDonald did. Evans appeared later.
I know that. The point I was making is the girl was deemed too drunk to give consent, rather than whether she gave consent to Evans, which I believe is a grey area
Maybe I misunderstood you.
You said
"It's never happened to me personally, but I know people who have been on a heavy night out, got shitfaced & woke up in the morning in bed with someone with no recollection of how they got there or what happened. Technically, they're all guilty of rape. Very grey area in my opinion."
Who is the "they" in bold? The people you know? Or the people they woke up with?
That's the point. In my view the answer is neither
But in a court of law, the answer could be either
If one person is sober and the other is shitfaced, that is a different dynamic to if both are drunk.
Also, a major part of why Clayton McDonald was found not guilty was that the woman went back to his hotel room. Not that that's always going to be an ironclad defence in a rape case.
I don't think the specifics of what Ched Evans did is that common. Maybe I've led a sheltered life.
My understanding is that Ched Evans was found guilty of rape on the basis that the girl in question was deemed too intoxicated to give her consent, rather than whether she gave consent or not. That to me is a very grey area. It's never happened to me personally, but I know people who have been on a heavy night out, got shitfaced & woke up in the morning in bed with someone with no recollection of how they got there or what happened. Technically, they're all guilty of rape. Very grey area in my opinion.
There's no suggestion that Ched Evans was drunk.
Ched Evans did not take the woman home. Clayton McDonald did. Evans appeared later.
I know that. The point I was making is the girl was deemed too drunk to give consent, rather than whether she gave consent to Evans, which I believe is a grey area
Maybe I misunderstood you.
You said
"It's never happened to me personally, but I know people who have been on a heavy night out, got shitfaced & woke up in the morning in bed with someone with no recollection of how they got there or what happened. Technically, they're all guilty of rape. Very grey area in my opinion."
Who is the "they" in bold? The people you know? Or the people they woke up with?
That's the point. In my view the answer is neither
But in a court of law, the answer could be either
If one person is sober and the other is shitfaced, that is a different dynamic to if both are drunk.
Also, a major part of why Clayton McDonald was found not guilty was that the woman went back to his hotel room. Not that that's always going to be an ironclad defence in a rape case.
I don't think the specifics of what Ched Evans did is that common. Maybe I've led a sheltered life.
Agree - I don't think it's that common to leave a hotel via the fire exit after consensual sex.
I am sure that, whatever the outcome, Ched Evans will not give a toss about what any of us think.
But is lack of consent due to intoxication really a grey area?
It is the circumstance of each alleged offence that has to be taken into consideration. Hopefully, at the retrial the evidence will be fully reviewed and the jury will come to a clear decision.
In the vast majority of cases, where both parties are too pissed to remember, there is absolutely no chance of any kind of criminal prosecution happening.
However, I'm not sure that someone being incapable of giving consent, by virtue of intoxication or any other reason, should not be afforded protection by the law. It's the same principle that means that sex with anyone one day shy of their sixteenth birthday (even where totally consensual) is still rape.
If the girl was as intoxicated as was suggested, including in the CCTV footage, it is hard to assume that she would have been in any condition to give an informed consent. As you say, both men involved were lacking in morals, but I would ask the question: if it was any of our sisters, daughters or nieces who were (shall we say) taken advantage of - even if only in such a state of inebriation where inhibitions were lowered - would we still view it as a grey area?
But then, I wonder whether the reaction to the case is due to the fact that, unlike the victim in the recent Stanford case, she was not able to make an impassioned victim's statement to express how the events of the night had affected her.
As an aside, I can guarantee that the defence team at the retrial will seek to completely destroy the reputation of the alleged victim (as will have already been done), and the actions of Ched Evans' supporters in placing her identity in the public domain was not just a contempt of court but utterly reprehensible.
Sorry, I get a bit judgemental (incidentally, my 2000 AD alter ego).
But this is the problem. How many times have you done something when drunk but have absolutely no recollection the next morning? You may have had every intention of doing what you did at the time but you just can't remember it.
And also, I wonder how many times any of us have actually asked for consent before sex? It's usually always implied rather than formally given. That's where I think the law has to be altered somehow.
But I think that the CCTV evidence was key in the original trial (as was, I understand, the text to Evans). From what I have read, and I am not privy to the finer details of the case (nor do I want to be), Evans was not in a similar state to the girl - I would have been very surprised if there would have been any prosecution if both parties were equally inebriated.
I don't actually think that the law needs to be changed. This case wasn't about normal, after a few beers sex, where you both get caught up in the "moment". The case rested on the argument that the girl was either so drunk that she was effectively comatose or, as she herself believed (at least in the immediate aftermath), she had been slipped something in her drinks.
It may, or may not, be that this argument will stand up to further scrutiny at the retrial (or whether the girl will be prepared to go through it all again); however, IMHO, the legal interpretation of someone capable of deciding to have sexual intercourse having that intercourse with an individual who is, at that time, incapable of making such a decision (whether on the grounds of age or intoxication, etc.) is entirely reasonable.
Sorry I wasn't necessarily talking about this case in my original post following Chrissy's.
I am sure that, whatever the outcome, Ched Evans will not give a toss about what any of us think.
But is lack of consent due to intoxication really a grey area?
It is the circumstance of each alleged offence that has to be taken into consideration. Hopefully, at the retrial the evidence will be fully reviewed and the jury will come to a clear decision.
In the vast majority of cases, where both parties are too pissed to remember, there is absolutely no chance of any kind of criminal prosecution happening.
However, I'm not sure that someone being incapable of giving consent, by virtue of intoxication or any other reason, should not be afforded protection by the law. It's the same principle that means that sex with anyone one day shy of their sixteenth birthday (even where totally consensual) is still rape.
If the girl was as intoxicated as was suggested, including in the CCTV footage, it is hard to assume that she would have been in any condition to give an informed consent. As you say, both men involved were lacking in morals, but I would ask the question: if it was any of our sisters, daughters or nieces who were (shall we say) taken advantage of - even if only in such a state of inebriation where inhibitions were lowered - would we still view it as a grey area?
But then, I wonder whether the reaction to the case is due to the fact that, unlike the victim in the recent Stanford case, she was not able to make an impassioned victim's statement to express how the events of the night had affected her.
As an aside, I can guarantee that the defence team at the retrial will seek to completely destroy the reputation of the alleged victim (as will have already been done), and the actions of Ched Evans' supporters in placing her identity in the public domain was not just a contempt of court but utterly reprehensible.
Sorry, I get a bit judgemental (incidentally, my 2000 AD alter ego).
But this is the problem. How many times have you done something when drunk but have absolutely no recollection the next morning? You may have had every intention of doing what you did at the time but you just can't remember it.
And also, I wonder how many times any of us have actually asked for consent before sex? It's usually always implied rather than formally given. That's where I think the law has to be altered somehow.
But I think that the CCTV evidence was key in the original trial (as was, I understand, the text to Evans). From what I have read, and I am not privy to the finer details of the case (nor do I want to be), Evans was not in a similar state to the girl - I would have been very surprised if there would have been any prosecution if both parties were equally inebriated.
I don't actually think that the law needs to be changed. This case wasn't about normal, after a few beers sex, where you both get caught up in the "moment". The case rested on the argument that the girl was either so drunk that she was effectively comatose or, as she herself believed (at least in the immediate aftermath), she had been slipped something in her drinks.
It may, or may not, be that this argument will stand up to further scrutiny at the retrial (or whether the girl will be prepared to go through it all again); however, IMHO, the legal interpretation of someone capable of deciding to have sexual intercourse having that intercourse with an individual who is, at that time, incapable of making such a decision (whether on the grounds of age or intoxication, etc.) is entirely reasonable.
Sorry I wasn't necessarily talking about this case in my original post following Chrissy's.
Fair enough, mind you, the thing that I normally do when pissed involves scoffing kebabs, and there's no way I can fail to remember in the morning...
I am sure that, whatever the outcome, Ched Evans will not give a toss about what any of us think.
But is lack of consent due to intoxication really a grey area?
It is the circumstance of each alleged offence that has to be taken into consideration. Hopefully, at the retrial the evidence will be fully reviewed and the jury will come to a clear decision.
In the vast majority of cases, where both parties are too pissed to remember, there is absolutely no chance of any kind of criminal prosecution happening.
However, I'm not sure that someone being incapable of giving consent, by virtue of intoxication or any other reason, should not be afforded protection by the law. It's the same principle that means that sex with anyone one day shy of their sixteenth birthday (even where totally consensual) is still rape.
If the girl was as intoxicated as was suggested, including in the CCTV footage, it is hard to assume that she would have been in any condition to give an informed consent. As you say, both men involved were lacking in morals, but I would ask the question: if it was any of our sisters, daughters or nieces who were (shall we say) taken advantage of - even if only in such a state of inebriation where inhibitions were lowered - would we still view it as a grey area?
But then, I wonder whether the reaction to the case is due to the fact that, unlike the victim in the recent Stanford case, she was not able to make an impassioned victim's statement to express how the events of the night had affected her.
As an aside, I can guarantee that the defence team at the retrial will seek to completely destroy the reputation of the alleged victim (as will have already been done), and the actions of Ched Evans' supporters in placing her identity in the public domain was not just a contempt of court but utterly reprehensible.
Sorry, I get a bit judgemental (incidentally, my 2000 AD alter ego).
But this is the problem. How many times have you done something when drunk but have absolutely no recollection the next morning? You may have had every intention of doing what you did at the time but you just can't remember it.
And also, I wonder how many times any of us have actually asked for consent before sex? It's usually always implied rather than formally given. That's where I think the law has to be altered somehow.
But I think that the CCTV evidence was key in the original trial (as was, I understand, the text to Evans). From what I have read, and I am not privy to the finer details of the case (nor do I want to be), Evans was not in a similar state to the girl - I would have been very surprised if there would have been any prosecution if both parties were equally inebriated.
I don't actually think that the law needs to be changed. This case wasn't about normal, after a few beers sex, where you both get caught up in the "moment". The case rested on the argument that the girl was either so drunk that she was effectively comatose or, as she herself believed (at least in the immediate aftermath), she had been slipped something in her drinks.
It may, or may not, be that this argument will stand up to further scrutiny at the retrial (or whether the girl will be prepared to go through it all again); however, IMHO, the legal interpretation of someone capable of deciding to have sexual intercourse having that intercourse with an individual who is, at that time, incapable of making such a decision (whether on the grounds of age or intoxication, etc.) is entirely reasonable.
Sorry I wasn't necessarily talking about this case in my original post following Chrissy's.
Fair enough, mind you, the thing that I normally do when pissed involves scoffing kebabs, and there's no way I can fail to remember in the morning...
Guilty or not, any bloke who climbs through a hotel window to have it off with someone that one of his mates has just done is probably not the kind of the bloke you want at the Junior Reds Christmas Party.
Agreed. And he had a girlfriend waiting at home too. How many people on here would welcome him into your home if he was with your daughter?
I have always wondered why his girlfriend has stood by him.
This puzzles me too. It's not for money as she's from a very wealthy family. I hate to say it but I guess it must be love? She says that the only thing that Ched is guilty of it cheating on her. But when you think of the way he cheated - so here's a man who loves sloppy seconds, the whole trial and imprisonment, the anger of fans of teams who tried to sign him etc etc and she still stands by him? I can't imagine in a million years standing by someone through all of that.
I should say at the beginning of this post that I have always believed that he has served his time and should be allowed to play again. However I respect the opinions of those who disagree with me.
Leaving the crime aspect to one side, professional footballers are young men, many of them have vast amounts of money and are seen as glamorous. It is hardly surprising that a fair percentage of them get involved in morally questionable activities and you can be pretty certain that virtually every league club, including ours, contains a few individuals who, or would if given a chance, indulge in what many people might consider dubious sexual activities. I wonder if the people who would protest about Evans playing football again because of his morals would refuse to buy or listen to music from any individual or band that had indulged in such behaviour.
There are at least two ex Charlton players who were fairly well known to be wife beaters and who are regularly described as legends on this forum.
Can you confirm Fortune and Humphrey are not either.
To play devils advocate; I've been absolutely blasted and been taken home by a fat bird before who I would never in a million years have shagged if I wasn't smashed. Does this rule only work one way or am I a rape victim?
Nope, you just need to get your eyesight sorted out.
I should say at the beginning of this post that I have always believed that he has served his time and should be allowed to play again. However I respect the opinions of those who disagree with me.
Leaving the crime aspect to one side, professional footballers are young men, many of them have vast amounts of money and are seen as glamorous. It is hardly surprising that a fair percentage of them get involved in morally questionable activities and you can be pretty certain that virtually every league club, including ours, contains a few individuals who, or would if given a chance, indulge in what many people might consider dubious sexual activities. I wonder if the people who would protest about Evans playing football again because of his morals would refuse to buy or listen to music from any individual or band that had indulged in such behaviour.
There are at least two ex Charlton players who were fairly well known to be wife beaters and who are regularly described as legends on this forum.
Can you confirm Fortune and Humphrey are not either.
Neither of those are the people I was thinking of.
Comments
But is lack of consent due to intoxication really a grey area?
It is the circumstance of each alleged offence that has to be taken into consideration. Hopefully, at the retrial the evidence will be fully reviewed and the jury will come to a clear decision.
In the vast majority of cases, where both parties are too pissed to remember, there is absolutely no chance of any kind of criminal prosecution happening.
However, I'm not sure that someone being incapable of giving consent, by virtue of intoxication or any other reason, should not be afforded protection by the law. It's the same principle that means that sex with anyone one day shy of their sixteenth birthday (even where totally consensual) is still rape.
If the girl was as intoxicated as was suggested, including in the CCTV footage, it is hard to assume that she would have been in any condition to give an informed consent. As you say, both men involved were lacking in morals, but I would ask the question: if it was any of our sisters, daughters or nieces who were (shall we say) taken advantage of - even if only in such a state of inebriation where inhibitions were lowered - would we still view it as a grey area?
But then, I wonder whether the reaction to the case is due to the fact that, unlike the victim in the recent Stanford case, she was not able to make an impassioned victim's statement to express how the events of the night had affected her.
As an aside, I can guarantee that the defence team at the retrial will seek to completely destroy the reputation of the alleged victim (as will have already been done), and the actions of Ched Evans' supporters in placing her identity in the public domain was not just a contempt of court but utterly reprehensible.
Sorry, I get a bit judgemental (incidentally, my 2000 AD alter ego).
I was trying to make the point that his behaviour, all be it unacceptable, does not make him the only footballer (or man for that matter) with questionable morals. If the statistics of infidelity are to be believed there are hundreds of thousands of men that have questionable morals.
I knew many, many people at university that had more than one sexual partner in a night. Whole parties were arranged for that specific purpose and if I told you where some of these people now work you would be horrified. What this has in common is that Ched Evans was about the same age as most students, yet we don't question what happens in halls of residence because there are no millionaire footballers living in them.
And also, I wonder how many times any of us have actually asked for consent before sex? It's usually always implied rather than formally given. That's where I think the law has to be altered somehow.
You said
"It's never happened to me personally, but I know people who have been on a heavy night out, got shitfaced & woke up in the morning in bed with someone with no recollection of how they got there or what happened. Technically, they're all guilty of rape. Very grey area in my opinion."
Who is the "they" in bold? The people you know? Or the people they woke up with?
But in a court of law, the answer could be either
I don't actually think that the law needs to be changed. This case wasn't about normal, after a few beers sex, where you both get caught up in the "moment". The case rested on the argument that the girl was either so drunk that she was effectively comatose or, as she herself believed (at least in the immediate aftermath), she had been slipped something in her drinks.
It may, or may not, be that this argument will stand up to further scrutiny at the retrial (or whether the girl will be prepared to go through it all again); however, IMHO, the legal interpretation of someone capable of deciding to have sexual intercourse having that intercourse with an individual who is, at that time, incapable of making such a decision (whether on the grounds of age or intoxication, etc.) is entirely reasonable.
Also, a major part of why Clayton McDonald was found not guilty was that the woman went back to his hotel room. Not that that's always going to be an ironclad defence in a rape case.
I don't think the specifics of what Ched Evans did is that common. Maybe I've led a sheltered life.
The statutory definition of rape is as follows:
Rape
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
Therefore unless the 'woman' is in fact a bloke, the likelihood of 'her' penetrating the man with 'her' penis seems a tad remote.