Ched Evans

[kaosmark2]

Good points. I think the issue is that the stance should be "if they aren't saying yes then they aren't consenting" rather than "if they aren't saying no them they aren't refusing". To often "she didn't say no" is used as justification.

Consent seems too low a bar. Lets aim for enthusiasm.

[eFestivals]

Um, I think you misunderstand the law. Its gender neutral.

If it really is, you'll be able to show me the other laws where being drunk absolves a person of their self-responsibilities.

In the real world, it's only women who are claiming to have been raped who are ever going to be deemed to not be responsible for their actions when drunk.

In all other circumstances a person remains responsible for their actions no matter how much alcohol they've consumed.

If you can't see that as the law working one way in a particular circumstance and another way in all other circumstances, and that difference is sexist in nature the issue is yours.

In case you're not aware, the justice system has been long identified as the most sexist British institution.

the prosecution needs to show that the accused should have known that the victim was too drunk to reasonably give consent.

which is also absolving a victim of responsibility for her own actions due to the alcohol she's consumed.

I fully accept that a woman's abilities to control her actions can be affected by drink, but that applies to any drunk-driver no less yet it's treated in the opposite manner.

The bar for conviction is very high.

This case proves that it's not.

Ultimately Evans' conviction is firmly within her claim - a claim that's made of a time when she's deemed to not be in control, remember - that she couldn't have given consent (which Evans disputes), despite her admission that she has no memory either way.

If a woman is not in control then she can't be sure of how she's acted when in that not-control, and nothing of her not being in control means that to male she's with she's necessarily looking like she's not in control (and more-so if they've only recently met so that the male has no idea of what her 'normal' actions might be).

The possibilities are endless around this, with many of those possibilities being not-rape.

Nothing of the above words is me saying that the law is ultimately wrong to go with that 'drunk and incapable' idea around rape, it's me saying that this particular law is contradictory in its logic compared to all other laws.

Of course, without this law, it would just mean a guy could just get a girl drunk and have sex with her without her consent, and there would be no legal recourse. That’s how most date rapes happen. And yes, the victim should try not to get that drunk, but it’s easy to lost track of how much you drink, and the price of being a little careless shouldn’t be being raped.

Well of course. Taking advantage of someone is undoubtedly wrong.

The issue comes in properly identifying after the event whether or not someone has actually been taken advantage of, or not, when there's a million different possibilities for how things might have played out at the time.

[fred quimby]

. He did a stupid stupid thing 5 years ago but he's served his time.

I also feel sorry for the girl by the amount of abuse she got over Twitter. Social media is a harsh environment

I think locking yourself out the house is a stupid thing. Rape is something altogether different.

And she has had to move house 5 times now, a little bit more than harsh I reckon

[feral chile]

Isnt the main difference that while the offender has to disclose to the employer, the employer doesnt have to disclose to their clients. In Evans case the clients all know about the conviction.

Would an employer take a chance on someone who was a risk of reputational damage to the company?

[feral chile]

Consent seems too low a bar. Lets aim for enthusiasm.

ok what about the men who have woken up next day and been horrified by who they wake up next to? Were they raped?

Now what if it's a girl who wakes up horrified?

Is that rape?

[feral chile]

If it really is, you'll be able to show me the other laws where being drunk absolves a person of their self-responsibilities.

In the real world, it's only women who are claiming to have been raped who are ever going to be deemed to not be responsible for their actions when drunk.

In all other circumstances a person remains responsible for their actions no matter how much alcohol they've consumed.

If you can't see that as the law working one way in a particular circumstance and another way in all other circumstances, and that difference is sexist in nature the issue is yours.

In case you're not aware, the justice system has been long identified as the most sexist British institution.

which is also absolving a victim of responsibility for her own actions due to the alcohol she's consumed.

I fully accept that a woman's abilities to control her actions can be affected by drink, but that applies to any drunk-driver no less yet it's treated in the opposite manner.

This case proves that it's not.

Ultimately Evans' conviction is firmly within her claim - a claim that's made of a time when she's deemed to not be in control, remember - that she couldn't have given consent (which Evans disputes), despite her admission that she has no memory either way.

If a woman is not in control then she can't be sure of how she's acted when in that not-control, and nothing of her not being in control means that to male she's with she's necessarily looking like she's not in control (and more-so if they've only recently met so that the male has no idea of what her 'normal' actions might be).

The possibilities are endless around this, with many of those possibilities being not-rape.

Nothing of the above words is me saying that the law is ultimately wrong to go with that 'drunk and incapable' idea around rape, it's me saying that this particular law is contradictory in its logic compared to all other laws.

Well of course. Taking advantage of someone is undoubtedly wrong.

The issue comes in properly identifying after the event whether or not someone has actually been taken advantage of, or not, when there's a million different possibilities for how things might have played out at the time.

Quite. And the difficulty is that neither party is likely to remember exactly went on, at least not accurately, if they were both drinking heavily.

[jump]

ok what about the men who have woken up next day and been horrified by who they wake up next to? Were they raped?

Now what if it's a girl who wakes up horrified?

Is that rape?

Nope as UK law says they must use a penis to rape.

[eFestivals]

[eFestivals]

Would an employer take a chance on someone who was a risk of reputational damage to the company?

many high street chains have doing so as a firm employment policy.

Did you enjoy your lunch today? You might have bought it from a paedo, rapist or murderer, who's on your local high street 5 days a week.

(and yes, i really do know what i'm talking about here!)

[feral chile]

Nope as UK law says they must use a penis to rape.

can they use their victim's penis?

Edited January 9, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

Nope as UK law says they must use a penis to rape.

the woman would be using the penis.

[feral chile]

many high street chains have doing so as a firm employment policy.

Did you enjoy your lunch today? You might have bought it from a paedo, rapist or murderer, who's on your local high street 5 days a week.

(and yes, i really do know what i'm talking about here!)

ok fair enough. Are you happy with it being left to employers to decide this then?

[jump]

can they use their victim's penis?

The law as it is, it even says he & his so it can't be a women unless it's as an accessory.

“ 1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if— (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person ( with his penis, ( B does not consent to the penetration, and © A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life."

edit* I copy and pasted it but the forum has changed a B ) (with no space between them) to

Edited January 9, 2015 by jump

[LondonTom]

Yup, the nasty mob signing a petition and saying how they don’t want to go to watch their club play football with their kids with a unrepentant rapist on the field supporting them.

It was slightly more people than the club's fans giving their opinion wasn't it? Oldham don't have that many fans, with taking away the fans who disagree/don't care.

Having a rapist/murder on the pitch brings the game into disrepute, same way having a rapist back as a Doctor brings that profession into disrepute.

Thats not why a rapist/sex offender is baned from being a Doctor, they are banned as they are in position of trust/authority and resonably could be seen as continuing risk.

I just can't see any risk from working as a footballer or you may aswell say they can't be in contact with any other human.

Nope as UK law says they must use a penis to rape.

Does it say a "real" penis?

[eFestivals]

ok fair enough. Are you happy with it being left to employers to decide this then?

Yep, perfectly happy. I'll keep on shopping in the high street places where I know their staff are almost exclusively ex-cons.

Otherwise we end up with ex-crims outside of normal society, which will only impact back onto normal society.

If we deny them the chance to resume a place in normal society, we might as well keep them banged up or string them up.

[feral chile]

The law as it is, it even says he & his so it can't be a women unless it's as an accessory.

“ 1-(1) A person (A) commits an offence if— (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person ( with his penis, ( B does not consent to the penetration, and © A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life."

edit* I copy and pasted it but the forum has changed a B ) (with no space between them) to

well I think there should be an equally serious crime for women manipulating men into sex against their wishes.

[feral chile]

Yep, perfectly happy. I'll keep on shopping in the high street places where I know their staff are almost exclusively ex-cons.

Otherwise we end up with ex-crims outside of normal society, which will only impact back onto normal society.

If we deny them the chance to resume a place in normal society, we might as well keep them banged up or string them up.

So if the football club itself decided not to employ him, you're ok with that, ust not if they're forced to by the public outcry, is that where you'd draw the line?

Or would you prefer the employer to have to prove it wasn't discrimination?

[zahidf]

Hmmm .... the way I read her father comments, of everything that he said, they strongly suggested to me that contact between him and her wasn't regular anyway. I took away the impression that the "had to miss Xmas with his *her* family" part was stretching one fact into something else.

and yet you'll blame Evans for the victim's harrassment, despite not a jot of evidence to link him to it.

Double-standards, much?

I'll keep taking the piss out of your view until you start to show yourself as having a reasonable view. At the mo you continually show that you don't.

no you haven't, not in the slightest. You've spouted bollocks to avoid the list of questions i asked you, which would (if you answered them) state categoriocally what you believe he should be permitted to do.

are you stipulating what the working lives should be for any other people? Or just Evans?

The world (or much of it) is Evan's working oyster. Are you really saying that he's only permitted to work for his father-in-law for the rest of his life?

As has already been said to you, these people are formally deemed by society to be in special positions of care or authority, and there is no comparison with a footballer.

You've yet to give any reason for why you think they're even remotely similar.

Yep, they would.

Once any criminal has served their sentence, they are realised back into society to resume normal life.

If we're not going to let them back into society and hope they resume a normal and useful life, the only other workable options are to keep them locked up forever, or to kill them.

yes I would.

It's all very well saying "I don't want a paedo living near me", but it's not possible for any paedo to not live near anyone. They have to live somewhere, and so people have to accept them living near them because of that.

If we're not going to let them back into society and hope they resume a normal and useful life, the only other workable options are to keep them locked up forever, or to kill them.

Those mob-like people don't have a sensible thought in them. There's a paedo's prison not so far from me, and the locals there are complaining about how it's not right that paedos live near them - even when those paedos are banged up within as prison.

I'm perfectly fine with Rolf being re-hired for TV if there's a TV channel that wishes to hire him, yes.

You're not getting the difference between a mob-imposed rule of no-return-to-society, and an individual's own consideration about whether a particular person is suitable for a particular job role.

But you wouldn't get that, because you're brain is not working, as proven by it overheating when you've looked at the reasonable questions i asked and found yourself unable to be reasonable in answering them.

If these things are all so easy to identify, it makes me wonder why they've never been identified around all the other crims in football - many of which have indisputably set out with the express purpose to cause harm to others (which couldn't be 100% pinned on Evans).

Ok, whatever a GP or a Lawyer has to do when they can't resume their previous career should apply to Evans. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for him.

he doesn't have to keep working for his father in law of course, just an example of something he can do.

And i think he can be rehabilitated like the Solicitor and GP are of course, or are you saying that's a bad system for them as well?

I don't agree with the mob, but a few petitions aren't a mob. The mob going after the victim is a mob of course.

[eFestivals]

So if the football club itself decided not to employ him, you're ok with that, ust not if they're forced to by the public outcry, is that where you'd draw the line?

Or would you prefer the employer to have to prove it wasn't discrimination?

I'm happy for an employer's 'customers' to let that employer know their feelings, and then the employer can make his decision on that individual within those views. All employees, ex-crims or not, are evaluated on both their skills and their reputation.

I'm not happy for society to have rules for ex-crims that say they're excluded from society, or for the mob to set the rules on a make-it-up-as-we-go-along basis.

This is why I keep asking what the Evans-antis will allow for his life, rather than only what they won't. Without them saying what is acceptable along with what isn't, they have an empty meaningless viewpoint that is only about victimising any ex-crim.

As we've already seen, those antis make demands that if fulfilled still aren't good enough. Without them giving a full view they'll keep moving the goalposts to continue the exclusion forever.

Edited January 9, 2015 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

ok what about the men who have woken up next day and been horrified by who they wake up next to? Were they raped?

Now what if it's a girl who wakes up horrified?

Is that rape?

As has been said since, legally no, but non-consensual sex is wrong.

[mrtourette]

It's the usual story, football player shags pissed up girl and the tabloids get their grubby paws on it. I'm sure there's been tons and tons of cases similar in the past and players have gone on and continued playing pprofessional football. Ched Evans is no different however he was found guilty, went to prison and served his time.

Are you saying that tons ond tons of players have raped women but that Ched Evans is one of the only ones that got caught? Or that this is a case of a footballer 'shagging a pissed up girl' and getting convicted of something he didn't do?

Now he is being branded as Rapist and will struggle to get any sort of work for the rest of his life.

He isn't 'being branded' as a rapist, he is a rapist as per a court of law. While I don't condone the reaction to him, struggling to get work post-release is something that most criminals face. He isn't specifically hard done by on that front.

He did a stupid stupid thing 5 years ago but he's served his time.

Half his time. And I'd like to suggest that rape is not just a 'stupid thing' (unless you're saying that he didnlt rape her and the 'stupid thing' was having sex with a drunk girl who could then make accusations against him).

Clayton Mcdonald got off the hook with a slap on the wrist despite his involvement and got in nowhere near as much sh$t as ched did.

Clayton McDonald was aquitted, and it doesnlt quite sound like he got off with just a slap on the wrist: http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/Ex-Port-Vale-player-Clayton-McDonald-Ched-Evans/story-23547995-detail/story.html

[eFestivals]

Ok, whatever a GP or a Lawyer has to do when they can't resume their previous career should apply to Evans. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for him.

Except of course it's totally different.

Doctors and lawyers and teachers, etc, have formal positions within society which give them special authoriity &/or formal respobsibility.

Nothing of that applies with someone who kicks a football for a living.

If it applies to someone who kicks a football for a living - a role with no authority or responsibility over/for others - what's the difference with someone who stacks shelves? Why doesn't what you say for Evans apply to them too?

What about all the shops on your local high street employing ex-crims? Should they be shut down on the basis you're applying to Evans?

he doesn't have to keep working for his father in law of course, just an example of something he can do.

Might it be then that you're thoughts are out of sight out of mind? Cos it's not like he's a greater risk to anyone playing footie than he is wortking for father-in-law.

Your offence is caused by you seeing that he exists, but not his actual existence?

That would be wacko, cos he's an ex-rapist in both cases, and other people are still having to see him.

NIMBYism, perhaps?

And i think he can be rehabilitated like the Solicitor and GP are of course, or are you saying that's a bad system for them as well?

What we have for footie players right now isn't a bad system. So you need to justify why it needs changing.

Nothing you've said shows it as a bad system. You've only said that you're offended by that system's existence.

I don't agree with the mob, but a few petitions aren't a mob. The mob going after the victim is a mob of course.

When the issue is nothing to do with those signing petitions, it's a mob.

When that mob is acting over one individual and not in a consistent codified manner, it's a mob.

When that mob can't define where their mob-attitude starts ad ends, it's a mob.

Etc, etc, etc.

When a person has had loads of time to answer some easy questions for a rational view but ducks and dives and still won't actually address the questions asked, you know they're part of the mob.

[feral chile]

From a feminist perspective, I'm not sure where I stand on this. Men taking advantage of drunken women isn't new, it used to be a risk women would factor into a night out, your friends would keep a protective eye on you and vice versa. And you'd take responsibility for your own safety, sort out how you were getting home beforehand etc.

Of course, it's wrong to take advantage of someone incapable of consent, but there's something about this law that seems to take responsibility away from women.

And also, the gender specific nature of it. Women are perfectly capable of getting a man drunk to have sex with him (though maybe not too drunk )

If a woman's comatose, then it's clear cut, and this wouldn't apply to a man equally.

But judgement calls/beer goggles - how far does the law go?

Edited January 9, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

struggling to get work post-release is something that most criminals face. He isn't specifically hard done by on that front.

But what is specific and different about Evans and does make him hard done by is that a mob is pursuing his every move and interfering in the opportunities where he might get a job - making his situation far worse than it might otherwise be for someone in his position.

[feral chile]

Except of course it's totally different.

Doctors and lawyers and teachers, etc, have formal positions within society which give them special authoriity &/or formal respobsibility.

Nothing of that applies with someone who kicks a football for a living.

If it applies to someone who kicks a football for a living - a role with no authority or responsibility over/for others - what's the difference with someone who stacks shelves? Why doesn't what you say for Evans apply to them too?

What about all the shops on your local high street employing ex-crims? Should they be shut down on the basis you're applying to Evans?

Might it be then that you're thoughts are out of sight out of mind? Cos it's not like he's a greater risk to anyone playing footie than he is wortking for father-in-law.

Your offence is caused by you seeing that he exists, but not his actual existence?

That would be wacko, cos he's an ex-rapist in both cases, and other people are still having to see him.

NIMBYism, perhaps?

What we have for footie players right now isn't a bad system. So you need to justify why it needs changing.

Nothing you've said shows it as a bad system. You've only said that you're offended by that system's existence.

When the issue is nothing to do with those signing petitions, it's a mob.

When that mob is acting over one individual and not in a consistent codified manner, it's a mob.

When that mob can't define where their mob-attitude starts ad ends, it's a mob.

Etc, etc, etc.

When a person has had loads of time to answer some easy questions for a rational view but ducks and dives and still won't actually address the questions asked, you know they're part of the mob.

Well there's the role model argument, of course. The little I've read about what happened - it was pretty horrendous behaviour, and I wouldn't have wanted any children of mine thinking he was cool and getting confused between being a decent footie player and a decent human being.