Ched Evans.

[Guest MattP]

18 hours ago, ttfn said:

I'm finding the Guardian's coverage of this quite distasteful.

It's the Guardian, what do you expect?

 

Even when people were still being held hostage in Paris about to be assasinated because of their religion their writers were filling the column inches not about the poor people actually being the victims of murderous anti-semitism, but the worry we must all have for the potential victims of so called Islamophobia, it's what they do and probably one of the reasons why they are going bust.

 

They'll do everything they can now to smear the name of Evans whilst pushing the virtue of the "poor" girl.

[Barky]

12 hours ago, FireFox said:

5. ... " Drunk consent, as juries are reminded by judges, is still consent."

 

What?

Hopefully it means that people are still  responsible for their actions after they've chosen to get drunk. I wouldnt expect to be able to get away with murder because i've had a few beers and it works both ways.

[Barky]

19 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I would say that the way this case affects the reporting of rape victims going forward is far from a secondary concern, given that it is already the most under reported and most maligned and stigmatized of what would be called major crimes anyway and then a high profile case ending up playing out like this. This really isn't going to help with that, and we've got the plod to thank for that. It's a fully legitimate concern that should be voiced at this time.

 

Your point about the slant of media across the board is spot on, though.

They could report on the under-reporting concern at any time. Linking it to a not guilty verdict implies that the under reporting concern should have been taken into account when determining his guilt, which is clearly wrong. Only the facts of the specific case are relevant when determining guilt.

[leicsmac]

33 minutes ago, Barky said:

They could report on the under-reporting concern at any time. Linking it to a not guilty verdict implies that the under reporting concern should have been taken into account when determining his guilt, which is clearly wrong. Only the facts of the specific case are relevant when determining guilt.

They can and they do. It's just that no one really listens, which is sad.

 

I can understand your point about such matters affecting this case in that way and it shouldn't be used like that, but it is an issue that has been overlooked for too long.

[Finnaldo]

On 10/15/2016 at 00:20, FireFox said:

5. ... " Drunk consent, as juries are reminded by judges, is still consent."

 

What?

 

Presumably, that refers the point he made where she was still able to control the situation and even commandeer it to some point ("Go harder") and therefore gave the jury reason to believe she still had enough awareness to willingly consent to intercourse, in contrast to being blacked out behind the bins like that Stanford swimmer got away with. Being intoxicated but still having enough awareness to engage and encourage a partner IS consent is the point he's making there, I think.

[FireFox]

8 hours ago, Finnaldo said:

 

Presumably, that refers the point he made where she was still able to control the situation and even commandeer it to some point ("Go harder") and therefore gave the jury reason to believe she still had enough awareness to willingly consent to intercourse, in contrast to being blacked out behind the bins like that Stanford swimmer got away with. Being intoxicated but still having enough awareness to engage and encourage a partner IS consent is the point he's making there, I think.

 

I guess... but "drunk" usually applies being intoxicated very much, to me at least. Should have been worded differently then, such as "Consent from a person who is slightly intoxicated is still consent."