Ched Evans found guilty

[Brown Fox]

He is a high profile footballer, and does have a girlfriend he is not going to want to get spotted leaving a hotel on his own in the middle of the night.

The more I read on the case I don't know how they reached that decision, if she was too drunk to consent to Evans she was too drunk to consent to McDonald. There is no evidence of them drinking in the hotel only before.

I really don't like this idea of rape by being too intoxicated to consent, that is a very dangerous thing as it is so subjective. People react differently to alcohol, and if you don't know that person you cannot tell if their behaviour is out of character, also if you are drunk you can't judge someone elses level of drunkenness.

The fact is some people, like me, suffer from memory loss when drinking too much, epsecially when tired, I have often said I can't remember something happening and my mates saying that I didn't seem drunk at the time. It is just the way I am wired, and it is fvcking annoying. I have often fooled around with girls and actually had sex and not remembered it, and in one case I actually "come round" whilst inside a woman, having no idea where I was, how I got there or who I was having sex with, I did know her, and I was enjoying it, and of course I had consented I was 19 years old, and had soberly consented to much worse, but it terrifies me to think what could happen if the roles were reveresed and a girl suddenly came round and found herself having sex with me, not knowing how she got there.

Anyone could be looking at 5 years for doing nothing more sinister than having consensual sex with a girl who suffers from memory loss when drunk.

I am not saying that is what happened in this case, and it clearly is not a simple case of drunken sex, but I find the wording of the offense very worrying.

But she has no recollection of consenting to either, just because she got in a taxi and went to a hotel room with him, doesn't mean she gave consent, it is impossible to prove either way and I fear that Evans has been found guilty because his behaviour comes across as a lot more sordid and unpleasant than McDonald, but in essence they did exactly the same thing, had sex with a girl that was too drunk to remember. There has been no talk of DNA evidence so the only way they could know that Evans had sex with her is if he/they admitted it, which you wouldn't do if you believed you had raped someone. Again that doesn't mean that they didn't but just that in their intoxicated state and the day after they didn't see anything wrong with their actions.

The only thing that should have been able to convict Evans over McDonald is the video footage taken by his mates, but there is no mention of this footage being shown in the court.

This is actually a really interesting point. My personal views are that if she can't remember a thing then surely it's just one drunk persons views against another. But as has been mentioned already there must have been some pretty damning evidence that hasn't been published for it to be unanimous.

[NewburyFox]

Was the decision required to be unanimous? I've read several times than the jury was unanimous in their verdict, but often in criminal cases the verdict is required to be unanimous either way, rather than the judge accepted a majority vote.

[Libertine Dream]

Not the greatest source but has some details

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2132704/Ched-Evans-jailed-years-rape.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

[marko]

Normally it's unanimous, but on occasions where deliberations become prolonged the judge can, if he wishes, order a majority verdict of 10 to 2.

[FoxyPV]

Any sexual encounter CAN become a POTENTIAL rape (even in a relationship)

Fixed.

Consent can be withdraw at any stage, even after penetration.

He was found guilty. Fvck him.

[Captain...]

Not the greatest source but has some details

http://www.dailymail...o=feeds-newsxml

I find this bit interesting:

'As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse.

'When you arrived at the hotel, you must have realised that.'

He told Evans that he might have been used to receiving attention from women in the past due to his success as a footballer, but this case was 'very different'.

He said the sentence took into account that there had been no force involved and the complainant received no injuries.

He also said the complainant was not 'targeted' and the attack had not been 'premeditated'.

This is what I don't get, Evans walks in on them having sex, and that wasn't rape, then shortly after he has sex with her and suddenly she is in "no condition to have sexual intercourse." Surely the person who has spent half an hour in a taxi and in the hotel with her is also able to see she is in no condition to have sex, but he is not guilty, McDonald "doesn't rape her" Evans who does the same thing to her only moments later does rape her. How can he be expected to judge that she is in no condition to have sex, if she has just had sex?

He's not had a conversation with her, he has not shared a taxi with her, he has just seen her legally have sex how can it then be wrong for him to have sex with her. This is not about her consenting or not it is about her being too drunk to give a valid consent.

Lets be honest here what he did was not a nice pleasant romantic thing, and he did cheat on his girlfriend, and stirred some pretty warm porridge, but if she did give consent then it is not illegal, so I just don't get the fact that she forgot giving consent makes it suddenly illegal.

[ADK]

True it makes no sense for one to be convicted and not the other. Based on the facts we know.

[Stevosevic]

So she is deemed to be too drunk to give consent? So how can one go down and one be innocent? Surely neither had consent?

[21st Century Fox]

I find this bit interesting:

This is what I don't get, Evans walks in on them having sex, and that wasn't rape, then shortly after he has sex with her and suddenly she is in "no condition to have sexual intercourse." Surely the person who has spent half an hour in a taxi and in the hotel with her is also able to see she is in no condition to have sex, but he is not guilty, McDonald "doesn't rape her" Evans who does the same thing to her only moments later does rape her. How can he be expected to judge that she is in no condition to have sex, if she has just had sex?

He's not had a conversation with her, he has not shared a taxi with her, he has just seen her legally have sex how can it then be wrong for him to have sex with her. This is not about her consenting or not it is about her being too drunk to give a valid consent.

Lets be honest here what he did was not a nice pleasant romantic thing, and he did cheat on his girlfriend, and stirred some pretty warm porridge, but if she did give consent then it is not illegal, so I just don't get the fact that she forgot giving consent makes it suddenly illegal.

But because she was kissing and I'm assuming talking to McDonald, he could be said to be of the belief that she was consenting and being able to prove otherwise would be extremely difficult. Where as she didn't consent to go back to the room with the knowledge that Evans would be there also and was in no fit state to consent to him being there. Also Evan's evidence that she was "not that drunk" contradicts all the video and eye witness evidence of her state. Having a friend and a brother filming it at the window didn't exactly help him.

[LCFC_FAN_1995]

Remember when Ched Evans was a wonderkid on Football Manager... Rated 20 for Aggression... Football Manager spot on as usual

[Libertine Dream]

I find this bit interesting:

This is what I don't get, Evans walks in on them having sex, and that wasn't rape, then shortly after he has sex with her and suddenly she is in "no condition to have sexual intercourse." Surely the person who has spent half an hour in a taxi and in the hotel with her is also able to see she is in no condition to have sex, but he is not guilty, McDonald "doesn't rape her" Evans who does the same thing to her only moments later does rape her. How can he be expected to judge that she is in no condition to have sex, if she has just had sex?

He's not had a conversation with her, he has not shared a taxi with her, he has just seen her legally have sex how can it then be wrong for him to have sex with her. This is not about her consenting or not it is about her being too drunk to give a valid consent.

Lets be honest here what he did was not a nice pleasant romantic thing, and he did cheat on his girlfriend, and stirred some pretty warm porridge, but if she did give consent then it is not illegal, so I just don't get the fact that she forgot giving consent makes it suddenly illegal.

There is something which doesn't seem quite right to me. I'm not saying it wasn't rape but it seems Evans has got himself in a mess which anybody could quite easily get into on a night out. McDonald may not have actually raped her but surely he could be done for assisting as he consented for her in effect. Things that won't have helped Evans are the fact he walked out and had people filming, had he stayed he probably would have got away with it but really he panicked. I know the case is based around the victim forgetting what happened but she seemed happy to let McDonald leave and let Evans carry on, just doesn't seem right to me.

[21st Century Fox]

There is something which doesn't seem quite right to me. I'm not saying it wasn't rape but it seems Evans has got himself in a mess which anybody could quite easily get into on a night out. McDonald may not have actually raped her but surely he could be done for assisting as he consented for her in effect. Things that won't have helped Evans are the fact he walked out and had people filming, had he stayed he probably would have got away with it but really he panicked. I know the case is based around the victim forgetting what happened but she seemed happy to let McDonald leave and let Evans carry on, just doesn't seem right to me.

Like someone said eariler, he may not be able to be convicted of something he hasn't be accused of (assisting etc). How was she happy for him to leave and for Evans to carry on?

[Captain...]

But because she was kissing and I'm assuming talking to McDonald, he could be said to be of the belief that she was consenting and being able to prove otherwise would be extremely difficult. Where as she didn't consent to go back to the room with the knowledge that Evans would be there also and was in no fit state to consent to him being there. Also Evan's evidence that she was "not that drunk" contradicts all the video and eye witness evidence of her state. Having a friend and a brother filming it at the window didn't exactly help him.

But the evidence of her being drunk (too drunk to give consent) is during the period in which she is supposed to have been giving consent to (kissing and talking to) McDonald.

[Libertine Dream]

Like someone said eariler, he may not be able to be convicted of something he hasn't be accused of (assisting etc). How was she happy for him to leave and for Evans to carry on?

It's more me misphrasing something because I can't get my thoughts written down in the correct way. I know its the law and it stops people taking advantage but it seems slightly unfair that because she was drunk he gets convicted, but then the law is the law.

To me they should both get a similar punishment.

[21st Century Fox]

But the evidence of her being drunk (too drunk to give consent) is during the period in which she is supposed to have been giving consent to (kissing and talking to) McDonald.

But there's quite a difference between willingly going to someone's hotel and someone appearing in a hotel room.

[Daggers]

Its as much her fault for being so drunk really.

In all probability, it's not really as much her fault as Evans (the scum-sucking piece of shit who predated upon an incapacitated young lady in order to shoot his wad). That said, I don't believe your comment warranted the barrage of personal abuse you were given either.

If someone gets drunk and then lairy it's pretty much their fault when they get a thorough twatting. My mate got drunk, acted like a cvnt, and ended up with a broken ankle - totally his fault. If I had a skinful so that I could barely walk and then climbed into a car I'm pretty sure that the world and his wife would be calling me all names for being an irresponsible fvckhead.

So someone explain to me why a woman can reduce herself to a pitiful state of not being able to walk unaided and yet be devoid of all responsibility for her actions?

The pavements of towns and cities across the country will be awash with cretins who've abused alcohol to such an extent they are a liability to themselves and others. They chose to get into such a state and I don't see how they can all become victims as a result. They have partial culpability until someone with an argument better than "You cvnt!" convinces me otherwise.

[21st Century Fox]

In all probability, it's not really as much her fault as Evans (the scum-sucking piece of shit who predated upon an incapacitated young lady in order to shoot his wad). That said, I don't believe your comment warranted the barrage of personal abuse you were given either.

If someone gets drunk and then lairy it's pretty much their fault when they get a thorough twatting. My mate got drunk, acted like a cvnt, and ended up with a broken ankle - totally his fault. If I had a skinful so that I could barely walk and then climbed into a car I'm pretty sure that the world and his wife would be calling me all names for being an irresponsible fvckhead.

So someone explain to me why a woman can reduce herself to a pitiful state of not being able to walk unaided and yet be devoid of all responsibility for her actions?

The pavements of towns and cities across the country will be awash with cretins who've abused alcohol to such an extent they are a liability to themselves and others. They chose to get into such a state and I don't see how they can all become victims as a result. They have partial culpability until someone with an argument better than "You cvnt!" convinces me otherwise.

Provoking a fight whilst drunk and having the ability to say no whilst a guy's standing in a room about to have sex with you seem pretty different.

If they'd both been drunk it would be totally different. The predatory nature of it would have to be questioned I'd imagine.

[StanSP]

A lot of people get drunk. I've got irresponsibly drunk and been annihilated (to an extent) for it. I wasn't proud of getting myself in that state.

But, just because someone gets unbelievably inebriated, it doesn't mean someone should take advantage of you, and in this girl's instance, rape you.

Being drunk isn't a crime. Someone raping you, whilst you are drunk or not, is a crime and it appears that Ched Evans didn't think about this when he walked in to the room.

[Daggers]

Provoking a fight whilst drunk and having the ability to say no whilst a guy's standing in a room about to have sex with you seem pretty different.

If they'd both been drunk it would be totally different.

Of course they're are different situations, that's not the point.

If you have incapacitated yourself to the extent where you are oblivious to what is going on around you then you have to take some responsibility for getting into that state. Not for one second do I condone Evans' actions, they are despicable, but I have not yet read or had explained to me anything which would excuse her from being partially responsible (and I am talking in my lifetime rather than just this thread).

[Daggers]

A lot of people get drunk. I've got irresponsibly drunk and been annihilated (to an extent) for it. I wasn't proud of getting myself in that state.

But, just because someone gets unbelievably inebriated, it doesn't mean someone should take advantage of you, and in this girl's instance, rape you.

Being drunk isn't a crime. Someone raping you, whilst you are drunk or not, is a crime and it appears that Ched Evans didn't think about this when he walked in to the room.

Again, you are not addressing the point either. I am not excusing Evans' actions.

Being "drunk" doesn't cover it, the girl had destroyed herself with alcohol. She was unable to walk unaided. If you willingly abuse your body to this extent then you must, when sober, appreciate that you could damage yourself or that people could take advantage of you...simply by taking your money, your phone or bag. If you are unable to coordinate yourself, speak with a reasonable level of lucidity or remember anything then how the shit are you going to keep yourself safe?

And being drunk is most definitely a crime.

[Libertine Dream]

Of course they're are different situations, that's not the point.

If you have incapacitated yourself to the extent where you are oblivious to what is going on around you then you have to take some responsibility for getting into that state. Not for one second do I condone Evans' actions, they are despicable, but I have not yet read or had explained to me anything which would excuse her from being partially responsible (and I am talking in my lifetime rather than just this thread).

I do have to agree. Its clear she set out to get completely wasted by the amount she drunk and it seems she regularly does it. Now everyone knows if you get in that state you're vulnerable and so the way she claims to be completely innocent and not at fault is rather false.

[21st Century Fox]

Of course they're are different situations, that's not the point.

If you have incapacitated yourself to the extent where you are oblivious to what is going on around you then you have to take some responsibility for getting into that state. Not for one second do I condone Evans' actions, they are despicable, but I have not yet read or had explained to me anything which would excuse her from being partially responsible (and I am talking in my lifetime rather than just this thread).

Probably because you should be able to get drunk without the threat of having a c0ck thrust at you. It was her free will to get that drunk but she shouldn't expect to be preyed on. Being drunk seems a fairly passive act in comparison.

Maybe I'm being too idealistic. I can't imagine a judge would state that she was partially to blame as it may stigmatise future victims and make them reluctant to come forward, letting the actually criminals get away.

I do have to agree. Its clear she set out to get completely wasted by the amount she drunk and it seems she regularly does it. Now everyone knows if you get in that state you're vulnerable and so the way she claims to be completely innocent and not at fault is rather false.

I haven't seen her claim anything? She just said she couldn't remember didn't she?

[Captain...]

But there's quite a difference between willingly going to someone's hotel and someone appearing in a hotel room.

There is also quite a difference between willingly going to somebody's hotel room and actually having sex with him.

She did not knowingly consent to sex with either of them, but that doesn't mean consent wasn't given and her level of intoxication was such that whilst in the taxi and in the hotel it was deemed by a jury unable to consent to sex.

There is no difference in consent by that given after weeks of courtship and romantic meals and long walks on the beach, and that given with spread of the legs and saying "come here and fvck me" to a stranger. If she could remember any of the taxi ride and talking and being supported back to the hotel room then yes that would be sufficient consent. But she doesn't, so how can she be judged sober enough to give consent and too drunk to give consent based on the same evidence of her intoxication.

[Daggers]

Probably because you should be able to get drunk without the threat of having a c0ck thrust at you.

You should.

I'd have expected it when sober too but it wasn't to be. There is always a possibility that shit will happen which is why Universities spend a lot of time during Freshers Weeks trying to ram the point home to female students and national adverts appear on TV highlighting the dangers of excessive abuse of alcohol.

The woman didn't get drunk. I get drunk - I slur my words a bit, laugh at crap jokes then eat a kebab (something I'd never dream of doing sober). She got annihilated...the difference is salient.

It was her free will to get that drunk but she shouldn't expect to be preyed on. Being drunk seems a fairly passive act in comparison.

Why shouldn't she expect that being preyed upon is a possibility if she allows herself to become incapacitated? Of course she should expect it as a potential outcome because she was not drunk, she was obliterated.

Maybe I'm being too idealistic. I can't imagine a judge would state that she was partially to blame as it may stigmatise future victims and make them reluctant to come forward, letting the actually criminals get away.

I'm not aware that this featured in my original post on the matter or relates to my point in any way.

[Captain...]

Probably because you should be able to get drunk without the threat of having a c0ck thrust at you. It was her free will to get that drunk but she shouldn't expect to be preyed on. Being drunk seems a fairly passive act in comparison.

You should also be able to get drunk and have consensual sex with a woman without being accused of being a rapist because there is no evidence of her consent.

This is not in relation to this case but more the dangerous precedent it could set.

I go out get drunk, a pretty lady comes up to me we have a few drinks together we have consensual sex, then she wakes up and accuses me of rape, she doesn't have to do anything other than say she doesn't remember aything and I'm fvcked.

There are people sick enough in this world to try and exploit that, a quick bit of financial compensation and it will all go away, otherwise I'm looking at 5 years in jail and being branded a rapist for the rest of my life.

Now I am not saying this happened in this case, I am sure she genuinely doesn't remember anything, but as I said when I first commented on this sometimes I drink what would be a normal amount for me and because I am tired my memory just stops using energy to record, but I am still able to make rational conscious decisions. I can send text messages in perfect english, cycle home, cook food, and I mean actually make proper food not just heat up a pizza and never lose my keys, wallet or anything. But I just don't remember it, doesn't mean I wasn't able to make a sound judgement at the time, it is just the way I sometimes react to alcohol.