Guest MattP Posted 7 January 2015 Share Posted 7 January 2015 Sorry I was meant to say I'm not referring to this case on that. Thinking about it Mcdonald has got off easy hasn't he? Not the actual verdict I mean, but he lied in court about a girl giving consent who got raped. I mean given circumstances now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ttfn Posted 7 January 2015 Share Posted 7 January 2015 Sorry I was meant to say I'm not referring to this case on that. Thinking about it Mcdonald has got off easy hasn't he? Not the actual verdict I mean, but he lied in court about a girl giving consent who got raped. I mean given circumstances now. That's not what the jury decided though. There's no evidence that McDonald lied to them. Essentially it was decided that she might have given her consent (at least the fact that she didn't give consent full stop wasn't proved beyond reasonable doubt) but she was too drunk for it to count. Which is probably the most concerning precedent in a story that is absolutely full of them. On that basis Evans has been sent to jail, placed on the sex offenders' list and almost hounded out of his career. But as Finners says if you don't act like a total scumbag you won't get into trouble. He's certainly guilty of being a total dickhead and possibly worse. But rapist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Blue Moon Posted 7 January 2015 Share Posted 7 January 2015 Labour - turning a blind eye to 1,400 children being raped for Muslim votes but demanding Ched Evans can't play football after being released from prison. Very much this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marko Posted 7 January 2015 Share Posted 7 January 2015 Sorry I was meant to say I'm not referring to this case on that. Thinking about it Mcdonald has got off easy hasn't he? Not the actual verdict I mean, but he lied in court about a girl giving consent who got raped. I mean given circumstances now. He was found not guilty as he had reasonable grounds to believe she had consented, due to the fact she willing went back to the hotel with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADK Posted 7 January 2015 Share Posted 7 January 2015 One moral of the story is to never talk to the police without legal representation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 7 January 2015 Share Posted 7 January 2015 He was found not guilty as he had reasonable grounds to believe she had consented, due to the fact she willing went back to the hotel with him. Yeah, which I find strange given no alcohol was consumed between the two incidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoyJones Posted 7 January 2015 Share Posted 7 January 2015 I have a problem with CE's conviction because it was obviously was not based on objective assessment but subjective. THere was no physical proof offered whatsoever. The prosecutors know they have at best a 50/50 case and having studied law, I can advise that one of the key reasons the procecution want a "guilty" person to show remorse is to confirm that there hasn't been a miscarriage of justice. Anybody who thinks that solicitors / judges care about justice, is naive; they mainly only care about their pay cheques. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 I have a problem with CE's conviction because it was obviously was not based on objective assessment but subjective. THere was no physical proof offered whatsoever. The prosecutors know they have at best a 50/50 case and having studied law, I can advise that one of the key reasons the procecution want a "guilty" person to show remorse is to confirm that there hasn't been a miscarriage of justice. Anybody who thinks that solicitors / judges care about justice, is naive; they mainly only care about their pay cheques. Nothing at all surprises me about that last sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ttfn Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 Yeah, which I find strange given no alcohol was consumed between the two incidents. That's not the point though Matt. The jury has essentially concluded that she was not in a fit state to consent to either man, however it could not be proven that McDonald did not have reasonable belief that consent which "counted" had been granted (due to the evidence of the taxi driver) whereas the fact that Evans let himself in and joined in seems to have been enough for the jury to conclude that he could not have had reasonable belief that consent had been granted. I can actually get on board with that part of the verdict, and in law I am now of the opinion that the right decision was reached. But the really troubling point for me is the idea that one can be too drunk to consent in the eyes of the law. If you're responsible for your own actions when drunk in the eyes of the law (which you are as people get convicted of crimes when drunk all the time) then you have got to be responsible for saying "yes" to sex with whoever you say "yes" to. This is not a case where it is unclear whether verbal (and by all accounts other types of) consent was granted. By the testimony of everybody in the room who can remember what happened, verbal consent WAS granted. There certainly isn't any evidence that it wasn't granted, which is where of course the burden of proof would sit if it wasn't for the fact that there's this idea of the consent being void because she was too drunk. Evans and McDonald didn't get her drunk. Undoubtedly they behaved in a somewhat predatory way but being a "predator" shouldn't make you a rapist. A total scumbag, sure, but to come back to the central issue, the evidence states that she consented verbally. Evans and McDonald behaved disgracefully and I wouldn't want them anywhere near anyone I cared about on a night out, that's for sure. But rape? For having sex with somebody who, according to the evidence, consented? That doesn't sit well with me and I can completely understand why Evans continues to protest his innocence on that basis. Where he should be showing some remorse is in the actions of people who are hounding the victim into new identities. Absolutely none of this is her fault at all. She didn't prey on a vulnerable person, she didn't report a rape (clearly not considering there to have been a rape) and she didn't ask for the publicity which has accompanied the case. Surely a statement disassociating himself and making clear that he finds their behaviour abhorrent wouldn't damage his review? Anyway it's a total mess and until we get varying degrees of rape and similar crimes in the legislation this sort of stuff is only going to become more of an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 That's not the point though Matt. The jury has essentially concluded that she was not in a fit state to consent to either man, however it could not be proven that McDonald did not have reasonable belief that consent which "counted" had been granted (due to the evidence of the taxi driver) whereas the fact that Evans let himself in and joined in seems to have been enough for the jury to conclude that he could not have had reasonable belief that consent had been granted. I can actually get on board with that part of the verdict, and in law I am now of the opinion that the right decision was reached. But the really troubling point for me is the idea that one can be too drunk to consent in the eyes of the law. If you're responsible for your own actions when drunk in the eyes of the law (which you are as people get convicted of crimes when drunk all the time) then you have got to be responsible for saying "yes" to sex with whoever you say "yes" to. This is not a case where it is unclear whether verbal (and by all accounts other types of) consent was granted. By the testimony of everybody in the room who can remember what happened, verbal consent WAS granted. There certainly isn't any evidence that it wasn't granted, which is where of course the burden of proof would sit if it wasn't for the fact that there's this idea of the consent being void because she was too drunk. Evans and McDonald didn't get her drunk. Undoubtedly they behaved in a somewhat predatory way but being a "predator" shouldn't make you a rapist. A total scumbag, sure, but to come back to the central issue, the evidence states that she consented verbally. Evans and McDonald behaved disgracefully and I wouldn't want them anywhere near anyone I cared about on a night out, that's for sure. But rape? For having sex with somebody who, according to the evidence, consented? That doesn't sit well with me and I can completely understand why Evans continues to protest his innocence on that basis. Where he should be showing some remorse is in the actions of people who are hounding the victim into new identities. Absolutely none of this is her fault at all. She didn't prey on a vulnerable person, she didn't report a rape (clearly not considering there to have been a rape) and she didn't ask for the publicity which has accompanied the case. Surely a statement disassociating himself and making clear that he finds their behaviour abhorrent wouldn't damage his review? Anyway it's a total mess and until we get varying degrees of rape and similar crimes in the legislation this sort of stuff is only going to become more of an issue. A fine post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Guiza Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 I have a problem with CE's conviction because it was obviously was not based on objective assessment but subjective. THere was no physical proof offered whatsoever. The prosecutors know they have at best a 50/50 case and having studied law, I can advise that one of the key reasons the procecution want a "guilty" person to show remorse is to confirm that there hasn't been a miscarriage of justice. Anybody who thinks that solicitors / judges care about justice, is naive; they mainly only care about their pay cheques. What physical proof did they need? There was absolutley no doubt that the event took place. Neither side has ever attempted to argue that. It wasn't a matter of a violent struggle etc either, so of course there aren't going to be any signs of that. Furthermore the mens rea of rape is a subjective element, the point that is required to prove is that 'the defendant did not reasonably believe that the victim consented to the penetration', so it's not a matter of whether the reasonable man believes that she did or did not consent, it's whether Evans himself believed he had consent. Also, ‘whether a belief is reasonable is determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps the defendant has taken to ascertain whether the victim consent.’ Which is obviously the key to this case, of course the average man doesn't get his missus or any woman to sign a waiver before intercourse, but that's not the point. The point is that the defendant has a responsibility to make sure that the victim has given true consent, in this case the jury believed this wasn't the case - and from what I have read, I do too but heyho. I've seen numerous points made in this thread regarding the average lad's one night stand after a night out, and the possibility of it leading to a floodgates scenario whereby many more 'unlucky' men will be found guilty for a drunken fumble. But, that's not really the case. I personally have never slept with a drunken lass when I was sober, especially after gaining entry to a seperate hotel room. If you can proove that Evans should not be found guilty, as a stone cold sober male, gaining entry to a hotel room that wasn't his own, and taking advantage of an intoxicated and vulnerable woman then hats off to you. I personally believe that showing remourse is a natural recourse of human behaviour, whether or not you wholeheartedly believe that what you did was a criminal offence or not. If Evans can't show the slightest ounce of remourse for what he did, I think that shows more about him as a person than it does an innocent mind. Of course showing remourse would have perhaps incriminated Evans, but his lack of didn't exactly help him. It's often used more by the defence, just look at Oscar Pistorious stunning display in South Africa. As has been said before, and above by ttfn, the problem with this case is in the sentencing structure and the wording of the law - not with the verdict. By legal definition Evans was and is guilty. It's perhaps clear that he shouldn't be grouped alongside serial rapists and serious sex offenders, in the same way that an old man who smothers his terminally ill wife, with her consent, shouldn't be grouped with Harrold Shipman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magictv Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 That's not the point though Matt. The jury has essentially concluded that she was not in a fit state to consent to either man, however it could not be proven that McDonald did not have reasonable belief that consent which "counted" had been granted (due to the evidence of the taxi driver) whereas the fact that Evans let himself in and joined in seems to have been enough for the jury to conclude that he could not have had reasonable belief that consent had been granted. I can actually get on board with that part of the verdict, and in law I am now of the opinion that the right decision was reached. But the really troubling point for me is the idea that one can be too drunk to consent in the eyes of the law. If you're responsible for your own actions when drunk in the eyes of the law (which you are as people get convicted of crimes when drunk all the time) then you have got to be responsible for saying "yes" to sex with whoever you say "yes" to. This is not a case where it is unclear whether verbal (and by all accounts other types of) consent was granted. By the testimony of everybody in the room who can remember what happened, verbal consent WAS granted. There certainly isn't any evidence that it wasn't granted, which is where of course the burden of proof would sit if it wasn't for the fact that there's this idea of the consent being void because she was too drunk. Evans and McDonald didn't get her drunk. Undoubtedly they behaved in a somewhat predatory way but being a "predator" shouldn't make you a rapist. A total scumbag, sure, but to come back to the central issue, the evidence states that she consented verbally. Evans and McDonald behaved disgracefully and I wouldn't want them anywhere near anyone I cared about on a night out, that's for sure. But rape? For having sex with somebody who, according to the evidence, consented? That doesn't sit well with me and I can completely understand why Evans continues to protest his innocence on that basis. Where he should be showing some remorse is in the actions of people who are hounding the victim into new identities. Absolutely none of this is her fault at all. She didn't prey on a vulnerable person, she didn't report a rape (clearly not considering there to have been a rape) and she didn't ask for the publicity which has accompanied the case. Surely a statement disassociating himself and making clear that he finds their behaviour abhorrent wouldn't damage his review? Anyway it's a total mess and until we get varying degrees of rape and similar crimes in the legislation this sort of stuff is only going to become more of an issue. Spot on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facecloth Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 Deal now off according to SSN app on my phone, but no article confirming it yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlaneyLCFC Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 Probably due to all the politician's chucking their 2 penneth worth in on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramboacdc Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 Probably due to all the politician's chucking their 2 penneth worth in on the matter. politicians? really?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facecloth Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 According BBC's Dan Roan on twitter it's due to pressure from sponsors and threats to staff and families. Nice that people feel they can take the moral high ground by making threats to people who probably have no involvement in the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzzy Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 cant get a club because of 1 slag and famous people who get involved in something they know **** all about. also the bbc make it one of there main stories in the last week instead of reporting on more important stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 cant get a club because of 1 slag and famous people who get involved in something they know **** all about. also the bbc make it one of there main stories in the last week instead of reporting on more important stuff Seriously? Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 So, what were you fellas saying again about corporate sponsors not being a big deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramboacdc Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 So, what were you fellas saying again about corporate sponsors not being a big deal? its a sad state of affairs when they sponsors are picking the players on the pitch. a guy on 5live who sponsors oldham said this (web based solutions or something) he said it wasn't his decision, as a sponsor, who plays for the club. rightly so in my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB11 Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 Delighted for him, assuming the formalities go through. She voluntarily went back to the hotel with him and can't remember whether or not she was raped. How he was found guilty is mind boggling. Congratulations Ched. Make up for lost time pal. Why didn't you come forward at the trial and act as a witness? You seem to be so sure about what you're saying. Oh, right, yeah, that's because the jury found him guilty based on the fact that she went home with another male, and Ched tagged along. Yes. Completely responsible for what happened, no doubt about that, but not intentional on his part. He also pleaded guilty. Deliberately drinking alcohol. Deliberately getting behind the wheel of the car and driving. It's never anyone's first time when they get caught. A series of deliberate and intentional actions resulted in the death therefore you should infer intent. I think another term should be coined for this type of rape, what Evans did was wrong but it's not as bad as violently raping a girl, I think that's the issue for some people. "But Your Honour, I only raped her a little bit so it's not that bad really" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 So, what were you fellas saying again about corporate sponsors not being a big deal? Did you actually read what was written? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 Nice that people feel they can take the moral high ground by making threats to people who probably have no involvement in the deal. Absolutely ridiculous, the number of complete and utter idiots is frightening really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swarles Barkley Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 So let me get this right. People are complaining about a rapist by making death threats to board members and their families. What the actual fvck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ttfn Posted 8 January 2015 Share Posted 8 January 2015 DB11's final comment is so far away from the point Wookie was making that he may as well be talking another language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.