James. Posted 19 November 2014 Posted 19 November 2014 Well if she can't remember, there would be a good chance that she agreed to it as she was capable of deciding what she wanted to eat earlier, so following that pattern, there is a good chance she carried on making decisions. This is perhaps the worst argument in the history of everything.
filbertway Posted 19 November 2014 Posted 19 November 2014 Can see Alf is reading, I look forward to the essay dissecting each point and repeating the same things again in about 20 minutes . Personally I'd pop it all in a word document and just copy and paste the necessary points.
Alf Bentley Posted 19 November 2014 Posted 19 November 2014 I just don't get this..... [...] This. If you're interested in the arguments presented in court and the grounds for the verdicts, they're described in detail here: https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans You might not agree with the law or with how the jury interpreted it after examining the evidence from all those involved. I do agree with the law and the jury. Otherwise, in the absence of new evidence, pretty much every possible argument for and against has been put forward in previous posts.
Alf Bentley Posted 19 November 2014 Posted 19 November 2014 Can see Alf is reading, I look forward to the essay dissecting each point and repeating the same things again in about 20 minutes . Personally I'd pop it all in a word document and just copy and paste the necessary points. Believe it or not, I had prepared my reply before seeing your post. I'm well aware that I'm a gasbag. I just find it hard to mend my ways!
Guest MattP Posted 19 November 2014 Posted 19 November 2014 I'm going to sound like an arse licking twat here but Alf and Captains display in this thread is what makes this forum so great. High quality posting, brilliant debating and giving every single person who reads it thorough enjoyment and so much to contemplate. Both should take a bow.
Alf Bentley Posted 19 November 2014 Posted 19 November 2014 I'm going to sound like an arse licking twat here but Alf and Captains display in this thread is what makes this forum so great. High quality posting, brilliant debating and giving every single person who reads it thorough enjoyment and so much to contemplate. Both should take a bow get on with their work and/or get a fvcking life, as should I. Thanks, Matt. Appreciated. I've made the appropriate amendments to your post.
Manwell Pablo Posted 19 November 2014 Posted 19 November 2014 I am sorry if you have taken offence but I am afraid your point was not very clear and that is why I queeried whether the use of 'might' was intentional or accidental. I have read the entire thread and much of the disagreement centres around people's opinions on what qualifies as consent and the role and responsibility of a drunk person in any assault. You made the point that a person who is intoxicated should be aware that they are liable to being vulnerable to an assault (sexual or otherwise), it is that point which I fundementally disagree with (so does the legal system) as that implies a degree of responsibility on the part of the drinker. As you can see if you have a read through the replies to your post, your in a minority with that view (a minority of one). Legal system doesn't actually agree with people getting paralytic either and there are a number of laws to both prevent and punish such actions. Of course there is a responsibility of the drinker, there is a reason the government runs a "please drink responsibly" if you drink to the point of total loss of control that's a irresponsible thing for any grown man or woman to do and you will leave yourself open to attacks of numerous sources (attacks your out of control actions may directly cause in some cases) and serious accidents or even death due to impaired senses, there was a lad in Ashby last year for example who, pissed out his tree, decided it would be a good idea to walk him down the A511 and stumbled and slipped at the wrong moment and ended up under a car. Now you can discuss issues over his responsibility and the right to do what he wants and "fundamentally disagree with me" till your blue in the face, he's still dead.
fleckneymike Posted 19 November 2014 Posted 19 November 2014 As you can see if you have a read through the replies to your post, your in a minority with that view (a minority of one). Legal system doesn't actually agree with people getting paralytic either and there are a number of laws to both prevent and punish such actions. Of course there is a responsibility of the drinker, there is a reason the government runs a "please drink responsibly" if you drink to the point of total loss of control that's a irresponsible thing for any grown man or woman to do and you will leave yourself open to attacks of numerous sources (attacks your out of control actions may directly cause in some cases) and serious accidents or even death due to impaired senses, there was a lad in Ashby last year for example who, pissed out his tree, decided it would be a good idea to walk him down the A511 and stumbled and slipped at the wrong moment and ended up under a car. Now you can discuss issues over his responsibility and the right to do what he wants and "fundamentally disagree with me" till your blue in the face, he's still dead. Thank you for your considered response. I am aware that tone can be lost on the internet so I apologise if what follows appears patronising. The example you cite above of a poor soul who walked on the A511 is a prime example of irresponsible behaviour. Walking on an A road whilst sober carries considerable risk and the government have issued advice for the public on how to do so, ignoring that advice would qualify as irresponsible behaviour. Walking on an A road whilst inebriated would only increase the risk posed by doing so as you might be more likely to ignore the safety advice and therefore increase your chances of being injurred. Indeed the fellow had earlier been seen dancing in the middle of the road completely oblivious to passing traffic, dancing in the middle of an A road whilst sober or drunk is irresponsible. The individual who tripped and fell under the passing vehicle tripped and fell, the driver of the car did not target the pedestrian, the driver of the car could not avoid the pedestrian. Drunk individuals are not at risk of being targetted by passing motorists, they are at risk of tripping and falling. The example you provided has no equivilancy with the Ched Evans case
Manwell Pablo Posted 20 November 2014 Posted 20 November 2014 Thank you for your considered response. I am aware that tone can be lost on the internet so I apologise if what follows appears patronising. The example you cite above of a poor soul who walked on the A511 is a prime example of irresponsible behaviour. Walking on an A road whilst sober carries considerable risk and the government have issued advice for the public on how to do so, ignoring that advice would qualify as irresponsible behaviour. Walking on an A road whilst inebriated would only increase the risk posed by doing so as you might be more likely to ignore the safety advice and therefore increase your chances of being injurred. Indeed the fellow had earlier been seen dancing in the middle of the road completely oblivious to passing traffic, dancing in the middle of an A road whilst sober or drunk is irresponsible. The individual who tripped and fell under the passing vehicle tripped and fell, the driver of the car did not target the pedestrian, the driver of the car could not avoid the pedestrian. Drunk individuals are not at risk of being targetted by passing motorists, they are at risk of tripping and falling. The example you provided has no equivilancy with the Ched Evans case Yes but the decision to walk along an A road in the first place was a direct result of being totally pissed though it's not a decision he would of made if sober. As I've said you are at a higher risk of both accidental and intentionally caused harm if plastered, I accept the example I've given is the former and the Evans case is the latter but the point still stands. Being a young woman, alone, extremely drunk, in the middle of a city late at night is every bit as irresponsible as walking down that road, that woman is extremely vulnerable and not just to rape, the argument that they shouldn't be is Utopian thinking, they are it's as simple as that . Both parties have put themselves in dangerous positions the only difference is the harm caused to them was deliberate in one case and accidental in another, and it's ok having a third party to blame in the case of the former, but that's not going to help the suffering of the victim is it? I say again, as you've come in half way through the argument I think you are missing the point. It is not a question of victims deserving what they get, this started because someone asked how I would feel if it was a relative of mine being taken advantage of and I replied explaining that I would, ideally, teach them to remain at least with it enough to know what they're doing when drunk as a total loss of self control is dangerous. That was then compared to me not allowing them out in a short skirt because they'd be "asking for it" which I'm sure even you can agree are two completely different circumstances.
Filbert_Ross Posted 20 November 2014 Posted 20 November 2014 Sheff Utd seen sense then. Not worth the hassle.
Leicesterpool Posted 20 November 2014 Posted 20 November 2014 Sheff Utd seen sense then. Not worth the hassle. Yeah best decision, just hope no other football club is stupid enough to take him on.
VLC86 Posted 20 November 2014 Posted 20 November 2014 Yeah best decision, just hope no other football club is stupid enough to take him on. They clearly will as has been demonstrated in the past, think about a league 2 team with low attendances. They wouldn't have many fans to lose compared to the ones they would gain if he fired them into league 1.
buzzy Posted 20 November 2014 Posted 20 November 2014 Yeah best decision, just hope no other football club is stupid enough to take him on. arsehole . read the details of this rape case not the daily sport or star version and tell me the girl is not a tart who knew what she was doing. how many others times as she cried rape even though she did not say no. i do not give a shit what responce i will get from this and i dont care
Fox92 Posted 20 November 2014 Posted 20 November 2014 Yeah best decision, just hope no other football club is stupid enough to take him on. We'll see about that!
Babylon Posted 21 November 2014 Posted 21 November 2014 This is purely opinion, not fact. wether he likes it or not, wether you like it or not, and believe me, i really dont like it... so, wether its right or wrong, footballers ARE seen as role models. End of. Coupled with the fact that sponsors seek to enhance their brand's reputation by being associated with another brand their potential customers see as something good. However they now see him as having a negative inpact on their brand and are threatening to end their sponsorship with Sheff United if they take him on as a player, In short, then there appears to be relavance wether we like it or not. The sponsors get more good exposure from pulling the sponsorship than they do having it. How many news outlets ran the Premier Range news article... in which they plug their own website. I bet you could have asked 99.99999% of the population who Wigan's back of shirt sponsor was and they wouldn't have known, now you can add me to the list that does know and I know their bloody web address as well. It's all marketing.
Guest MattP Posted 21 November 2014 Posted 21 November 2014 Money talks. Sheffield United would have toxic in sponsors eyes and that's swung it here. His appeal is being brought forward so he should be concentrating on that anyway.
notnow john Posted 21 November 2014 Posted 21 November 2014 The sponsors get more good exposure from pulling the sponsorship than they do having it. How many news outlets ran the Premier Range news article... in which they plug their own website. I doubt you could have asked 99.99999% of the population who Wigan's back of shirt sponsor was and they wouldn't have known, now you can add me to the list that does knowand I know their bloody web address as well. It's all marketing. That's a great point.
Ashley Posted 21 November 2014 Posted 21 November 2014 The girl in question that he 'raped' has previous doesn't she? One premier league football who paid her off and two rugby players but it was thrown out? She also had sex twice in the said night?
Mark_w Posted 21 November 2014 Posted 21 November 2014 The girl in question that he 'raped' has previous doesn't she? One premier league football who paid her off and two rugby players but it was thrown out? She also had sex twice in the said night? Is there any evidence, or are we just throwing out any old accusations to discredit a rape victim now?
Babylon Posted 21 November 2014 Posted 21 November 2014 Is there any evidence, or are we just throwing out any old accusations to discredit a rape victim now? I've seen in mentioned a few times but not seen any concrete evidence. In fact it's probably highly unlikely, I'm not sure she has ever even accused Evans of rape, only stating that she can't remember what happened.
Ashley Posted 21 November 2014 Posted 21 November 2014 To have sex with two people on that night surely she had to give consent? I personally don't believe Evans is guilty but each to their own hey? Lad life is ruined now even if she did give consent..
filbertway Posted 21 November 2014 Posted 21 November 2014 It's still a bit raw at the minute so no great shock. You don't want to lose Jennis from your side so it was a no brainer really. I'm sure he'll pick up a league one club at the end of the season and slip back in.
Mark_w Posted 21 November 2014 Posted 21 November 2014 To have sex with two people on that night surely she had to give consent? How do you work that out?
Babylon Posted 21 November 2014 Posted 21 November 2014 To have sex with two people on that night surely she had to give consent? I personally don't believe Evans is guilty but each to their own hey? Lad life is ruined now even if she did give consent.. I'm not sure it's even about that, she's never said whether she did or didn't give consent as she can't remember. It's more about her condition at the time and whether she was in a state to actually give consent. I wouldn't have fancied being on the jury for this one as you are basically having a guess as to what her condition was.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.