Ched Evans

[pink_triangle]

Big if imo. But anyway i still think he is dick, even if he is an innocent one

 

I think there is little argument he is a dick, something not uncommon with young male footballers.  Being a dick is not enough to deserve time in jail and that is what the courts will decide.  I also think when reading about his appeal from the likes of the daily mail, mirror, sun etc we should remember that these newspapers are not suddenly beacons of truth.  One paper claimed that he was targeting a place in the wales 2016 squad, I would be surprised if that is the case.

[eFestivals]

I think there is little argument he is a dick, something not uncommon with young male footballers.

 

Corrected for you.

[pink_triangle]

Corrected for you.

 

I couldn't argue with that!

[mungo57]

I've followed the case closely as I have always liked Ched (as a football player, please don't troll me for this) but I think there are more than enough grounds for him to appeal.

 

I refuse to pass judgement until his appeal is done and finished. I abhor rapists as much as the next person but this was far from an open and shut case. I will reserve judgement until after the appeals board has done their thing and accept what is said.

 

Hardly bothers me really, Watford have Troy Deeney and Odion Ighalo - we don't need Ched

Edited October 12, 2015 by mungo57

[lost]

I was listening to the Joe Rogan podcast and apparently though they don't have this law in the states yet, alot of universities are effectively enforcing it by expelling male students who have slept with girls that were very drunk and don't remember what happened the night before.

[eFestivals]

I was listening to the Joe Rogan podcast and apparently though they don't have this law in the states yet, alot of universities are effectively enforcing it by expelling male students who have slept with girls that were very drunk and don't remember what happened the night before.

 

while I have a big issue with any form of abuse, I also have a big issue for males being held responsible for someone else's drunkenness more-so than the dr8unk person is for their own drunkenness.

 

If a person isn't self-responsible for their own drunkenness, then how can it follow that someone-not-them is?

[mungo57]

while I have a big issue with any form of abuse, I also have a big issue for males being held responsible for someone else's drunkenness more-so than the dr8unk person is for their own drunkenness.

 

If a person isn't self-responsible for their own drunkenness, then how can it follow that someone-not-them is?

 

agreed

 

the amount of times me and my girlfriend have had sex after being both drunk by the logic they used to convict Ched I should be public enemy number 1 and hung drawn and quartered on Tower Hill

Edited October 12, 2015 by mungo57

[pink_triangle]

I think with the Evans case there has been a lot of pro Evans propaganda around.  We weren't on the jury who found him guilty. I think that decision should be accepted until the law deems otherwise.

[mungo57]

I think with the Evans case there has been a lot of pro Evans propaganda around.  We weren't on the jury who found him guilty. I think that decision should be accepted until the law deems otherwise.

agreed

[eFestivals]

it can also be the case, of course, that the bloke is as drunk as the woman ... which makes the bloke responsible for his own drunkenness AND the woman's drunkenness while the woman gets a completely free pass for her own behaviour.

 

It's insane logic. Sooner or later people must wake up to how insane it is ... surely?

[mungo57]

it can also be the case, of course, that the bloke is as drunk as the woman ... which makes the bloke responsible for his own drunkenness AND the woman's drunkenness while the woman gets a completely free pass for her own behaviour.

 

It's insane logic. Sooner or later people must wake up to how insane it is ... surely?

agreed

[bunique]

There's being "responsible" for one's drunkenness and there's being "responsible" for having sex with someone who is not compos mentis enough to consent. To conflate the two is dangerous.

Campus rape in America, especially in the early weeks of the year starting, has only recently hit the headlines as being (allegedly)?pretty endemic. It's not surprising universities are struggling to find a way to deal with it and are making mistakes along the way

Edited October 12, 2015 by bunique

[kaosmark2]

If both are drunk then both are culpable.

[bunique]

If both are drunk then both are culpable.

For rape?

[eFestivals]

There's being "responsible" for one's drunkenness and there's being "responsible" for having sex with someone who is not compos mentis enough to consent. To conflate the two is dangerous.

 

I don't disagree with that.

 

However, the reality of how it plays out if far more dangerous. The woman can consent when drunk and then revoke her consent after the fact by blaming her drunkenness, and the bloke gets convicted.

 

And if both are the same drunk, why is it that the woman gets a free pass for his drunkenness while the bloke is held responsible for both his and her drunkenness?

 

Once people are absolved from responsibility for their own behaviour, all sense is out of the window.

[zahidf]

it can also be the case, of course, that the bloke is as drunk as the woman ... which makes the bloke responsible for his own drunkenness AND the woman's drunkenness while the woman gets a completely free pass for her own behaviour.

It's insane logic. Sooner or later people must wake up to how insane it is ... surely?

The threshold is very high to be convicted under the law. Its not just 'drunk sex'.

And i believe the american student thing is based more on a pattern of more than one girl making a complaint rather than (again) drunk sex gone wrong.

[eFestivals]

If both are drunk then both are culpable.

 

you and me both know that's not how it would play out in any courtroom.

 

In fact (whatever the actual truth of things) that's precisely the basis on which Evans got convicted. He says the woman actively consented at the time, and despite no evidence to disprove that he's been convicted.

 

(Perhaps Evans' conviction is right despite that evidence;. I'm certainly not comfortable with him having been convicted on that basis tho).

[zahidf]

I don't disagree with that.

However, the reality of how it plays out if far more dangerous. The woman can consent when drunk and then revoke her consent after the fact by blaming her drunkenness, and the bloke gets convicted.

That implies she is lying for post sex regret. And the reality is that this would result in the guy not being convicted (as shown by the 4% conviction rate for rape). And a girl can get as drunk as she likes without being preyed upon by rapists... (which is what the law is trying to prevent)

[eFestivals]

The threshold is very high to be convicted under the law. Its not just 'drunk sex'.

Bullshit.

Evans has been convicted on a "he said/she said" basis - where her word is accepted as truthful but his isn't.

It might be the right conviction, but it's certainly not a "very high" threshold of evidence for conviction.

#

[zahidf]

you and me both know that's not how it would play out in any courtroom.

In fact (whatever the actual truth of things) that's precisely the basis on which Evans got convicted. He says the woman actively consented at the time, and despite no evidence to disprove that he's been convicted.

(Perhaps Evans' conviction is right despite that evidence;. I'm certainly not comfortable with him having been convicted on that basis tho).

A lot more to it than that as above in the court transcripts i posted. Also his own witness evidence was not believed by the jury, so he was clearly not believable on the stand

[zahidf]

Bullshit.

Evans has been convicted on a "he said/she said" basis - where her word is accepted as truthful but his isn't.

It might be the right conviction, but it's certainly not a "very high" threshold of evidence for conviction.

#

Nope. Lets get this clear, she was too drunk to remember what happened on the night in question. She didnt say she was raped, she said she was too drunk to remember what happened at all.

[eFestivals]

That implies she is lying for post sex regret. And the reality is that this would result in the guy not being convicted (as shown by the 4% conviction rate for rape). And a girl can get as drunk as she likes without being preyed upon by rapists... (which is what the law is trying to prevent)

So no woman has ever lied about her sexual encounters?

And Ched Evans is one of the (claimed) realities, which proves your take wrong.

I'm in no way trying to defend Evans, but I'm pointing out the inconsistencies of the law. The woman in that case claims to have no memory of the incident, and from that claim of no memory it's deemed that she couldn't have consented.

 

The two things do not necessarily follow, and if the male/female roles were reversed there's no way the woman would be convicted as Evans has been.

 

I'm not saying there's any easy answers to these situations, but inconsistent application of law is not an answer either.

 

[eFestivals]

A lot more to it than that as above in the court transcripts i posted. Also his own witness evidence was not believed by the jury, so he was clearly not believable on the stand

 

Ultimately it comes down to his word against hers and nothing more.

 

Just because he wasn't believed about his word doesn't mean his words are false. There's not one of us who hasn't been disbelieved even by our own mothers when we were being truthful.

 

Because people get to be morons about this subject I'l,say again: I'm not trying to defend Evans, I'm pointing out the stupidity of inconsistent law.

[kaosmark2]

For rape?

For getting drunk and the consequences.

I don't sleep with drunk girls, I don't think that's OK, however if two people shack up when drunk, then I don't think either can blame the other more than themselves.

[eFestivals]

Nope. Lets get this clear, she was too drunk to remember what happened on the night in question. She didnt say she was raped, she said she was too drunk to remember what happened at all.

 

And that's fine. That's how it goes sometimes - tho the responsibility for her own condition is hers alone.

 

I object to the idea that because someone has no memory of a situation a particular set of circumstances are deemed to have happened.