ScouseFox Posted 20 April 2012 Posted 20 April 2012 It's all a bit weird. Not sure where to start with it, most has been covered by people in this thread. Rape is very bad, but how someone who can't remember anything can somehow remember if they consented or not seems weird to me. But I've not read everything, and like Finners said, 12 people who have heard every single fact over a number of days have all agreed to the same thing, I'm not gonna argue with them. And I've just remembered I'm going Port Vale away tomorrow.
ThurnbyLodgeFox Posted 20 April 2012 Posted 20 April 2012 It's all a bit weird. Not sure where to start with it, most has been covered by people in this thread. Rape is very bad, but how someone who can't remember anything can somehow remember if they consented or not seems weird to me. But I've not read everything, and like Finners said, 12 people who have heard every single fact over a number of days have all agreed to the same thing, I'm not gonna argue with them. And I've just remembered I'm going Port Vale away tomorrow. I'm going to Sheffield United away
accessory Posted 20 April 2012 Posted 20 April 2012 Unless it is true, it happened to us in La Manga, and there are other incidents of women crying rape after sleeping with a high profile person (not saying that is the case but, if it is then his team-mates aren't scum bags, if it isn't then they are scumbags). La Manga was totally different. The judge in Spain threw the case out before the players reached trial. Anyone who tweets in support of a convicted rapist and disparages his victim is beneath contempt.
foxfanazer Posted 20 April 2012 Posted 20 April 2012 They don't get away with it because they are footballers, just that the wages they earn can pay for the better lawyers. Yeah true
ThurnbyLodgeFox Posted 20 April 2012 Posted 20 April 2012 La Manga was totally different. The judge in Spain threw the case out before the players reached trial. Anyone who tweets in support of a convicted rapist and disparages his victim is beneath contempt. Innocent til proven guilty, which he's been found. I'm unsure ATM but I definitely won't be backing him, but I won't be arguing against him either
StanSP Posted 20 April 2012 Posted 20 April 2012 no, but why would 2 people say she gave consent and then the girl, who was pissed out her mind (who stated she can't remember) say she didn't? the same as his mate got off and he didn't? why would someone who has so much promise, do something so stupid to ruin his career? Because they don't have much common sense (amongst other factors)? Just cos it's not in their nature to do something like this, doesn't mean they aren't capable of doing it.
ThurnbyLodgeFox Posted 20 April 2012 Posted 20 April 2012 Because they don't have much common sense (amongst other factors)? Just cos it's not in their nature to do something like this, doesn't mean they aren't capable of doing it. Very true
Out Foxed Posted 20 April 2012 Posted 20 April 2012 "The court heard that Mr McDonald met the woman and took her back to the hotel room, sending a text to Evans stating he had "got a bird" he got off free? he's telling him he pulled. not, got a bird for you to rape.
ScouseFox Posted 20 April 2012 Posted 20 April 2012 he's telling him he pulled. not, got a bird for you to rape. That's how you've interpreted it. You don't know what he meant by it. I thought the same but it's a pretty coincidental choice of words you've gotta admit!
Corky Posted 20 April 2012 Posted 20 April 2012 Yet he's been aloud to play all season... Well, he's innocent until proven guilty, so he should be allowed to play before his trial has commenced.
ThurnbyLodgeFox Posted 20 April 2012 Posted 20 April 2012 Yet he's been aloud to play all season... Because he's innocent until proven guilty
EcclesallOwl Posted 20 April 2012 Posted 20 April 2012 Well, he's innocent until proven guilty, so he should be allowed to play before his trial has commenced. Because he's innocent until proven guilty The original trial was postponed because of football or something..
ThurnbyLodgeFox Posted 20 April 2012 Posted 20 April 2012 The original trial was postponed because of football or something.. I think the fact you're a Wednesday fan influences your opinion here
StanSP Posted 20 April 2012 Posted 20 April 2012 The original trial was postponed because of football or something.. Where did you see/hear that, then? This is when the story broke out. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-14359481 There's no statement on the article saying he got bailed because of 'football (or something)'. And as others have said before, and as the saying goes, 'innocent until proven guilty'.
EcclesallOwl Posted 20 April 2012 Posted 20 April 2012 I think the fact you're a Wednesday fan influences your opinion here It doesn't at all I didn't want him to get sent down, I wanted justice. I also think it's harsh that Ched's been sent down and McDonald has been let off.
ThurnbyLodgeFox Posted 20 April 2012 Posted 20 April 2012 It doesn't at all I didn't want him to get sent down, I wanted justice. I also think it's harsh that Ched's been sent down and McDonald has been let off. I was shocked, one partywas lying, and others have said, if the girl can't remember getting to the hotel, how can she remember giving consent or not? Who knows
EcclesallOwl Posted 20 April 2012 Posted 20 April 2012 Where did you see/hear that, then? This is when the story broke out. http://www.bbc.co.uk...-wales-14359481 There's no statement on the article saying he got bailed because of 'football (or something)'. And as others have said before, and as the saying goes, 'innocent until proven guilty'. I saw it somewhere, obviously can't find it because when you type anything about Ched on google it comes up with this recent trial.
EcclesallOwl Posted 20 April 2012 Posted 20 April 2012 I was shocked, one partywas lying, and others have said, if the girl can't remember getting to the hotel, how can she remember giving consent or not? Who knows I was under the assumption that she couldn't remember, therefore she couldn't have given consent? I don't really understand the whole thing but the Jury must have been shown something to convince them, as the decision was a unanimous 12-0 vote.
ThurnbyLodgeFox Posted 20 April 2012 Posted 20 April 2012 I was under the assumption that she couldn't remember, therefore she couldn't have given consent? I don't really understand the whole thing but the Jury must have been shown something to convince them, as the decision was a unanimous 12-0 vote. Still weird how the other guy got sent down, dot understand it An appeal is inevitable I'd imagine
EcclesallOwl Posted 20 April 2012 Posted 20 April 2012 Still weird how the other guy got sent down, dot understand it An appeal is inevitable I'd imagine Just seen this from a local reporter Kelly O'Donnell @Kelly_O_Donnell ... The presumption is that she agreed to have sex with Clayton, but not to Evans who took advantage of her
ThurnbyLodgeFox Posted 20 April 2012 Posted 20 April 2012 Just seen this from a local reporter Kelly O'Donnell @Kelly_O_Donnell ... The presumption is that she agreed to have sex with Clayton, but not to Evans who took advantage of her I do t know what happened so I can't really comment, but I cant believe that clayton got off so easiy Just seen this from a local reporter Kelly O'Donnell @Kelly_O_Donnell ... The presumption is that she agreed to have sex with Clayton, but not to Evans who took advantage of her I do t know what happened so I can't really comment, but I cant believe that clayton got off so easiy
21st Century Fox Posted 20 April 2012 Posted 20 April 2012 It'd interesting to hear what Lisa thinks of it as a) a woman and b) someone with 100% more knowledge of the law than any of us.
Tielemans63 Posted 20 April 2012 Posted 20 April 2012 Just seen this from a local reporter Kelly O'Donnell @Kelly_O_Donnell ... The presumption is that she agreed to have sex with Clayton, but not to Evans who took advantage of her "the presumption is" - its scary to think they have presumed she gave consent to Donaldson but not to Evans. One guy gets away scot-free, the other goes down for 5 years and the girl can't remember what happened? If there was some pretty indisputable evidence put forward against Evans I'm surprised it hasn't been revealed now the trial has concluded.
marko Posted 20 April 2012 Posted 20 April 2012 "the presumption is" - its scary to think they have presumed she gave consent to Donaldson but not to Evans. One guy gets away scot-free, the other goes down for 5 years and the girl can't remember what happened? If there was some pretty indisputable evidence put forward against Evans I'm surprised it hasn't been revealed now the trial has concluded. I've just been researching the issue of consent and presumption. Under s.75(1) Sexual Offences Act 2003 the complainant/defendant is presumed to not have consented to the sexual act unless there is sufficient evidence to adduce there has been consent, so I can only presume consent was adduced by the fact she agree to go back to the hotel. So with regard to Evans, there is an presumption consent was not given, further, also under s.75(1) the Defendant must reasonably believe the complainant has consented. Again, it would seem the judge/jury don't believe Evans could reasonably believe she had consented due to her drunken state; there would also be issue of evidence of her consenting.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.