Guest MattP Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Cool, so it's not rape if the victim is a twat. I learn so much on foxestalk. Who on earth has said that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaphamFox Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Who on earth has said that? Nobody has said any such thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaelicFox Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Full expect him to be cleared in the new trial. The Internet was full of stories about what the new evidence was , if it's true, 100% he walks and it looks like the appeal judges thought so If the cops suppressed the evidence and had it all the time expect the biggest compensation claim against the police ever ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaelicFox Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Surely it's going to be all those Tweets etc where the rape "victim" is telling her mates how much money/holidays etc she'll get out the case? And emails and messages on Facebook etc....... Suggestion is cops knew about it all as well and never presented in books of evidence ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaelicFox Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 She didn't make the complaint herself, did she? If I remember currently she went the police for different reasons and then it unfolded from there following discussions with employees there. I suspect he will be charged with something else when it comes to the re-trial. It's definitely not black and white, that's for sure, but his actions were immoral and taking advantage at best and sexual assault at worst. In a world of victim shaming and high profile sexual assault trials, I think the wrong message would be sent to be given a full acquittal; in my opinion anyway. Jesus what a load of bollox at the end there buddy ! If the poor twat is innocent of rape then he needs to be acquitted ... It's not a PR exercise its Justice we want Honestly some of the shite posted on hear makes me think how on earth did Britain ever become Great ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaelicFox Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Nobody has said any such thing. Finners has been up all night watching vampires get rodgered by Disney characters ! Lost in the fog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 The Internet was full of stories about what the new evidence was , if it's true, 100% he walks and it looks like the appeal judges thought so If the cops suppressed the evidence and had it all the time expect the biggest compensation claim against the police ever ! Got any links? As I said before, if it is her saying things after the event about spending the money etc I don't see how it can be used as evidence, regardless of how crass it is. Unless she admitted to remembering everything including consent and was lying about not remembering. He wasn't convicted based on any testimony from the victim, he was convicted because he slept with her and the evidence shown was decided as sufficient to prove she was too drunk to consent. If there is any new evidence it would have to either prove she wasn't too drunk to consent, or that he didn't have sex with her (which he has already admitted) so it would have to prove she was able to give a valid consent and did give that consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Guiza Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Jesus what a load of bollox at the end there buddy ! If the poor twat is innocent of rape then he needs to be acquitted ... It's not a PR exercise its Justice we want Honestly some of the shite posted on hear makes me think how on earth did Britain ever become Great ! What an astonishing thing to say. So the fact that he might be innocent doesn't come into it? He shouldn't be acquitted because it might send 'the wrong message'? Are you actually serious?! No I don't think she ever remembered the event until she had further discussions with people. I couldn't disagree with your last line more, I don't really care about what message is, the important thing for me is that the jury gets the correct verdict, people shouldn't be found guilty of things if they aren't just because we are worried about potential victim shaming. Justice is sacrosanct. I don't think anyone is denying Evans is a sleazy scumbag, the real question is whether he's a rapist. Sorry, that was poorly worded. What I was trying to say is that, based on the facts of the case, I believe to acquit him completely would send out the wrong message. That message being that it is acceptable to sleep with an intoxicated woman when you are stone cold sober and clearly have no other intention other than cheap sex. I am of course assuming in this case that this was the case, obviously if he is/was completely innocent then I wouldn't suggest that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaphamFox Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Having sex with somebody who is 'intoxicated' is not a crime, otherwise most adults in the UK would be in prison right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Having sex with somebody who is 'intoxicated' is not a crime, otherwise most adults in the UK would be in prison right now. Having sex with someone to drunk to consent is. I just don't think she was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaelicFox Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Got any links? As I said before, if it is her saying things after the event about spending the money etc I don't see how it can be used as evidence, regardless of how crass it is. Unless she admitted to remembering everything including consent and was lying about not remembering. He wasn't convicted based on any testimony from the victim, he was convicted because he slept with her and the evidence shown was decided as sufficient to prove she was too drunk to consent. If there is any new evidence it would have to either prove she wasn't too drunk to consent, or that he didn't have sex with her (which he has already admitted) so it would have to prove she was able to give a valid consent and did give that consent. Of course it does it casts huge doubts on her evidence ! She was portrayed as someone who's life was destroyed and the jury could believe her account because of the massive toll it took on her emotionally etc.... If we find out she was loving the chance to make a few quid , I'm afraid her credibility is dead in the water No one knows if he raped her , he said he didn't she said he did , the jury believed her account based on the evidence they were presented , that looks like it's all about to change ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Having sex with somebody who is 'intoxicated' is not a crime, otherwise most adults in the UK would be in prison right now. Careful now Clappers, there are different interpretations of intoxicated, you might want to re-word that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 If there's going to be a retrial then the courts can decide. Our uninformed opinions are irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellend Sebastian Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 I've been drunk on love many times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaelicFox Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 I've been drunk on love many times Over an evening out Would "two glasses of wine, four double vodkas with lemonade, and a shot of sambuca" have left you "felt tipsy but not out of control" but later so intoxicated you forget concenting to that love ! That's quite mental on my book ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Of course it does it casts huge doubts on her evidence ! She was portrayed as someone who's life was destroyed and the jury could believe her account because of the massive toll it took on her emotionally etc.... If we find out she was loving the chance to make a few quid , I'm afraid her credibility is dead in the water No one knows if he raped her , he said he didn't she said he did , the jury believed her account based on the evidence they were presented , that looks like it's all about to change ! What evidence? Read the facts of the case, she woke up drunk, alone in a hotel room, with no memory. She had lost her purse so went to the police station to see if it had been handed in. When she told the police what she remembered they investigated found the hotel room had been booked by a footballer, called them in. They admitted to sleeping with her, she couldn't remember anything so they were charged with rape. She didn't accuse them of anything because she didn't remember anything, she had no evidence to give, she didn't go looking for this, she just wanted to find her purse. The evidence was CCTV footage of her being drunk and falling over and stumbling around, and the evidence of the taxi driver and hotel porter who saw her on that night. How she acted afterwards, what she said or didn't say is irrelevant to the facts. If someone attacks you and breaks your leg, you claiming that you will sue them for every penny and go an expensive holiday doesn't mean they didn't attack you. The only evidence that would change the court's decision is one that proves she wasn't too drunk to consent. Her saying shit on facebook doesn't do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Guiza Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Having sex with somebody who is 'intoxicated' is not a crime, otherwise most adults in the UK would be in prison right now. Of course. However, there is a huge difference between two people having drunken sex and your mate bringing a girl back, out of her face (for arguments sake), and you (sober) sleeping with her. Nobody is saying that you have to make your missus/stranger take a breathalyser test before you get down to it, much the same as it's not the case that you ID everybody you sleep with, it's a matter of common sense and not falling into the trap of thinking you are above the law just because it's 'a bit of fun'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaphamFox Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Careful now Clappers, there are different interpretations of intoxicated, you might want to re-word that. What evidence? Read the facts of the case, she woke up drunk, alone in a hotel room, with no memory. She had lost her purse so went to the police station to see if it had been handed in. When she told the police what she remembered they investigated found the hotel room had been booked by a footballer, called them in. They admitted to sleeping with her, she couldn't remember anything so they were charged with rape. She didn't accuse them of anything because she didn't remember anything, she had no evidence to give, she didn't go looking for this, she just wanted to find her purse. The evidence was CCTV footage of her being drunk and falling over and stumbling around, and the evidence of the taxi driver and hotel porter who saw her on that night. How she acted afterwards, what she said or didn't say is irrelevant to the facts. If someone attacks you and breaks your leg, you claiming that you will sue them for every penny and go an expensive holiday doesn't mean they didn't attack you. The only evidence that would change the court's decision is one that proves she wasn't too drunk to consent. Her saying shit on facebook doesn't do that. It does if she has subsequently admitted to friends that she actually does remember what happened. Boasting about the money etc is clearly irrelevant, so it won't be just that. There will have to be something much more substantial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellend Sebastian Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Over an evening out Would "two glasses of wine, four double vodkas with lemonade, and a shot of sambuca" have left you "felt tipsy but not out of control" but later so intoxicated you forget concenting to that love ! That's quite mental on my book ! I'll experiment and report back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Got any links? As I said before, if it is her saying things after the event about spending the money etc I don't see how it can be used as evidence, regardless of how crass it is. Unless she admitted to remembering everything including consent and was lying about not remembering. He wasn't convicted based on any testimony from the victim, he was convicted because he slept with her and the evidence shown was decided as sufficient to prove she was too drunk to consent. If there is any new evidence it would have to either prove she wasn't too drunk to consent, or that he didn't have sex with her (which he has already admitted) so it would have to prove she was able to give a valid consent and did give that consent. It does if she has subsequently admitted to friends that she actually does remember what happened. Boasting about the money etc is clearly irrelevant, so it won't be just that. There will have to be something much more substantial. Well that is what I said originally, I've not seen these comments, but if she admits to remembering it then it changes everything, all I've seen is people say she was going on about making loads of money and going on holidays. Which whilst crass doesn't mean she wasn't raped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaphamFox Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Well that is what I said originally, I've not seen these comments, but if she admits to remembering it then it changes everything, all I've seen is people say she was going on about making loads of money and going on holidays. Which whilst crass doesn't mean she wasn't raped. Of course it doesn't - and is therefore completely irrelevant. And besides, those boasts have been known about for ages. Supposedly the new evidence has arisen from fresh interviews with the girl's friends and acquaintances, including the friend who accompanied her to the police station the next day. It will be interesting to know what they've said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaelicFox Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 What evidence? Read the facts of the case, she woke up drunk, alone in a hotel room, with no memory. She had lost her purse so went to the police station to see if it had been handed in. When she told the police what she remembered they investigated found the hotel room had been booked by a footballer, called them in. They admitted to sleeping with her, she couldn't remember anything so they were charged with rape. She didn't accuse them of anything because she didn't remember anything, she had no evidence to give, she didn't go looking for this, she just wanted to find her purse. The evidence was CCTV footage of her being drunk and falling over and stumbling around, and the evidence of the taxi driver and hotel porter who saw her on that night. How she acted afterwards, what she said or didn't say is irrelevant to the facts. If someone attacks you and breaks your leg, you claiming that you will sue them for every penny and go an expensive holiday doesn't mean they didn't attack you. The only evidence that would change the court's decision is one that proves she wasn't too drunk to consent. Her saying shit on facebook doesn't do that. He is innocent man right now It's a re-trial Conviction is quashed ...... Think the onus is on them now go once again prove how such conflicting reports to the police adds up rape Keep in mind the evidence may relate to what she did and said between leaving hotel and speaking to police He is innocent right now in the eyes of the law , think we should all respect that fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaelicFox Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Vile woman But occasionally she hits the nail on the head http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3551612/KATIE-HOPKINS-lynch-mob-never-forgive-Ched-Evans-successful.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 He is innocent man right now It's a re-trial Conviction is quashed ...... Think the onus is on them now go once again prove how such conflicting reports to the police adds up rape Keep in mind the evidence may relate to what she did and said between leaving hotel and speaking to police He is innocent right now in the eyes of the law , think we should all respect that fact. I'm not sure what point your trying to make with him now being innocent. I have not suggested otherwise. All I'm doing is asking what this new evidence is, that you have claimed to have seen. Her talking about spending money on holidays is a) not new and b) not evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnegan Posted 21 April 2016 Share Posted 21 April 2016 Having sex with someone to drunk to consent is. I just don't think she was. I don't think I've ever stepped over a girl laying on the floor of a kebab shop and thought "yeah, she's fully in control." Nor can I imagine ever letting myself, sober, in to a hotel room occupied by said girl with a key I'd conned out of a receptionist, and having sex with her. I concede to a point that I think Matt (I apologise if not) has made previously, that what Evans has done is drastically different to the common interpretation of the word "rape" and that the law quite possibly could and should make the difference. But without that distinction, he was found guilty by a jury of his peers. What he did is and should be a crime whatever you call it. What he admitted to is itself utterly deplorable and the fact his partner stood with him is mindboggling. If he's cleared entirely it'll be a travesty regardless of how big a pratt the girl is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.