[Stumps]

I’m just putting this out to see how the cycling world view the approach.

So, with all the media exposure and people resigning their posts left right and centre what are peoples views on the Ched Evans story. Should he be allowed to play football again and if so are Sheffield United the right club for him or should he be banned from them but allowed to play elsewhere ?

He is currently appealing the court result as “alleged new evidence” has come to light not previously disclosed by the Criminal Protection Service.

This is not a witch hunt against him and my own view is that he’s served his sentence and has been released back into society so he should be allowed to play football again and its down to the individual club to decide if he’s right for them.

Thoughts ????/

Topic

[Jimmy Ray Will]

Bikebikebike wrote:
Well the

Bikebikebike wrote:

Well the girl in question said her drink was spiked. And according to the Ched ‘convicted rapist’ Evans website she had drunk too little to get her really drunk, but appeared very drunk (having lost her handbag, had trouble walking, and pissed in a doorway). So what are we to conclude? As part of her big act to convince people she was raped she in advance completely lost it as a stunning double bluff?

I imagine if any female members of your family have their drink spiked that you hope they meet people as upstanding as Ched and his cohorts.

Sorry to drag this up again….

The point I am trying to confirm is whether or not it is rape, when a victim is still conscious, blatantly intoxicated, but conscious and seemingly willing to take part… in that I mean being an active part in proceedings?

Again, I do not know the exact details of this case, I am asking to clarify understanding and the law in the above described scenario in the wider term.

To clarify, is it a legal requirement not to engage in sexual pursuits when the other person is clearly intoxicated (taking it as given that the person is still conscious)? i.e. where is the legal line.

However we feel about what is appropriate or not is not relevant, it is the law that counts.

And as for the victims conduct… thats not relevant in my opinion, I am only interested in the convicted, and more to the point, all adult males’ legal responsibilities in this scenario.

Unfortunately, whilst the tests came back negative for date rape drugs etc. this is not conclusive proof that the person did not have their drink spiked.

[Joeinpoole]

stumps wrote:Folks, thanks

stumps wrote:

Folks, thanks for all your views, some very interesting takes on “rape” from both sides. We will just have to wait and see what happens if the judicial review comes up with anything.

Cheers Stumps.

I agree; it was indeed an interesting exercise. Opinions seem to have been totally polarised between those who have studied the ‘evidence’ … and those who had not.

As a betting man I’d happily lay odds in favour of this conviction being thrown out after review. I bloody hope so anyway … it’s clearly insane.

[Stumps]

Folks, thanks for all your
Folks, thanks for all your views, some very interesting takes on “rape” from both sides. We will just have to wait and see what happens if the judicial review comes up with anything.

Cheers Stumps.

[MKultra]

Joeinpoole wrote:Bikebikebike

Joeinpoole wrote:

Bikebikebike wrote:

Well the girl in question said her drink was spiked. And according to the Ched ‘convicted rapist’ Evans website she had drunk too little to get her really drunk, but appeared very drunk (having lost her handbag, had trouble walking, and pissed in a doorway). So what are we to conclude? As part of her big act to convince people she was raped she in advance completely lost it as a stunning double bluff?

I imagine if any female members of your family have their drink spiked that you hope they meet people as upstanding as Ched and his cohorts.

Do you actually bother to read the reports on what happened before spouting your views? Blood tests on ‘the girl in question’ proved that her drinks hadn’t been spiked.

She was a 19-year-old waitress who thought nothing of getting legless, taking cannabis, taking cocaine and dropping her knickers to anyone she might meet on a street corner late at night … which is exactly what happened in this case. She was apparently known for being the ‘town bike’.

Your “upstanding” witness.

And the OP claimed the victim was not being attacked or subjected to trial by social media…

Vile.

Utterly vile.

[Joeinpoole]

Bikebikebike wrote:
Well the

Bikebikebike wrote:

Well the girl in question said her drink was spiked. And according to the Ched ‘convicted rapist’ Evans website she had drunk too little to get her really drunk, but appeared very drunk (having lost her handbag, had trouble walking, and pissed in a doorway). So what are we to conclude? As part of her big act to convince people she was raped she in advance completely lost it as a stunning double bluff?

I imagine if any female members of your family have their drink spiked that you hope they meet people as upstanding as Ched and his cohorts.

Do you actually bother to read the reports on what happened before spouting your views? Blood tests on ‘the girl in question’ proved that her drinks hadn’t been spiked.

She was a 19-year-old waitress who thought nothing of getting legless, taking cannabis, taking cocaine and dropping her knickers to anyone she might meet on a street corner late at night … which is exactly what happened in this case. She was apparently known for being the ‘town bike’.

Your “upstanding” witness.

[Bikebikebike]

Jimmy Ray Will

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Bikebikebike wrote:

So someone spikes your drink, and you don’t know what you’re doing. Someone else convinces you to go to a hotel room and fucks you up the arse. You’re so out of it you don’t complain. This, according to you, is not a crime.

But this is not the scenario we are dealing with here as far as I have read. No ones’ drink was spiked, no one was knowingly unconscious.

As I’ve previously said, if they are unconscious then its a no brainer…

However, in all my years, I have blacked out twice from alcohol abuse. more to the point, in my young years I dabbled lots on the journey to unconsciousness, and on none of those highly drunk occasions would anyone have been able to do something to me that I didn’t want without me making it very clear that its not what I wanted.

Are we saying the same thing here? Could you clarify that you are saying that someone really drunk is not able to give consent, when conscious but clearly totally pissed…. i.e. if the victim is actively taking part and willing at the time, are they still a victim of rape because the other person is knowingly taking part in something that the victim may not have chosen to do when sober?

Well the girl in question said her drink was spiked. And according to the Ched ‘convicted rapist’ Evans website she had drunk too little to get her really drunk, but appeared very drunk (having lost her handbag, had trouble walking, and pissed in a doorway). So what are we to conclude? As part of her big act to convince people she was raped she in advance completely lost it as a stunning double bluff?

I imagine if any female members of your family have their drink spiked that you hope they meet people as upstanding as Ched and his cohorts.

[notfastenough]

The closest I’ve seen on here
The closest I’ve seen on here to the victims integrity being called into question is that crimeline.info website including the testimony from the expert witness for the defence who suggested that she hadn’t been drunk enough to suffer memory loss.

The focus of this thread has revolved around his version of events and whether they are thought to be plausible and reasonable behaviour.

[Jimmy Ray Will]

MKultra wrote:It seems that

MKultra wrote:

It seems that Mr Evans can only be tried once for this offence but his victim can be placed on trial by social media as many times as it takes to help him wriggle out of his guilt. Any employer has the right to decline him employment as he was convicted of a serious offence that is not yet spent. That which he claims to be the “truth” can not over ride that.

Some of this thread is reading like the stuff you see put about by “Mens Rights Activists” and that “Pick Up Artist” who was just denied entry to the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30119100

It’s a bit worrying and you do wonder if you will see similar threads on other forums possibly started by people who know each other online. It all comes over as a bit scripted and almost targeted IMHO…

Wow, you take cynicism to another level! I thought I was bad.

I don’t think anyone has outwardly questioned the victims integrity anywhere on this thread.

As for men’s rights… well men do have rights… I think that is fair enough.

In this instance (thread not case may I add) a clear understanding of what does not constitute consent in the area of intoxicated women is a reasonable request.

[MKultra]

It seems that Mr Evans can
It seems that Mr Evans can only be tried once for this offence but his victim can be placed on trial by social media as many times as it takes to help him wriggle out of his guilt. Any employer has the right to decline him employment as he was convicted of a serious offence that is not yet spent. That which he claims to be the “truth” can not over ride that.

Some of this thread is reading like the stuff you see put about by “Mens Rights Activists” and that “Pick Up Artist” who was just denied entry to the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30119100

It’s a bit worrying and you do wonder if you will see similar threads on other forums possibly started by people who know each other online. It all comes over as a bit scripted and almost targeted IMHO…

[Matt eaton]

Should he be *allowed* to
Should he be *allowed* to play profesional football again? – yes. He’s done his time and is now back out in the world. Frankly, he should be working and contributing to society in some way in my view.

Should his old club (or any club) give him a job? – that’s totally up to them and they will doubtless consider the potential for losses due to reputational damage as a result or employing him and balance this with the benefits of having him on the books. It’s OK that the club’s decision is informed by public opinion too, after all they are effectivly selling themselves to the public.

On the issue of consent it is a very tricky subject. Drink is involved in most one-night stands and I don’t think that it’s at all uncomon for participants to have regrets about their actions the following day, or maybe even immediatly after the act. People willingly do a lot of things when drunk that they wouldn’t when sober that they regret afterwards and in many cases they just need to be chalked up to experience. I don’t doubt that many people are taken advantage of to some degree when intoxicated and not just in a sexual context. Where this crosses the line and becomes rape is not clear to me but clearly there is a point where consent is not possible due to the level of intoxication. I don’t know all of the details of this case and probably never will as it seems that the one person who could fill in the blanks is not able to remember anything.

The fact that two people were tried but only one was convicted makes me feel that something is out-of-line with the whole thing. The inferance is that the girl consented to having sex with one of them but then declined the other (or passed out and was taken advantage of) but this version of events does not seem to have been presented (as I say, I’m not familiar with the case so I could be mistaken).

[Jimmy Ray Will]

Bikebikebike wrote:
So

Bikebikebike wrote:

So someone spikes your drink, and you don’t know what you’re doing. Someone else convinces you to go to a hotel room and fucks you up the arse. You’re so out of it you don’t complain. This, according to you, is not a crime.

But this is not the scenario we are dealing with here as far as I have read. No ones’ drink was spiked, no one was knowingly unconscious.

As I’ve previously said, if they are unconscious then its a no brainer…

However, in all my years, I have blacked out twice from alcohol abuse. more to the point, in my young years I dabbled lots on the journey to unconsciousness, and on none of those highly drunk occasions would anyone have been able to do something to me that I didn’t want without me making it very clear that its not what I wanted.

Are we saying the same thing here? Could you clarify that you are saying that someone really drunk is not able to give consent, when conscious but clearly totally pissed…. i.e. if the victim is actively taking part and willing at the time, are they still a victim of rape because the other person is knowingly taking part in something that the victim may not have chosen to do when sober?

[notfastenough]

Joeinpoole wrote:Prompted by

Joeinpoole wrote:

Prompted by the wide variety of views expressed here I’ve been doing a bit of digging in an attempt to find out what actually happened.

Having done a bit of research I am now astounded that CE was convicted at all. From what I’ve read I wouldn’t even have concluded that he was guilty of the very serious crime of rape by ‘balance of probability’ … but *beyond reasonable doubt*? No way.

The complainant had never said she was raped (although apparently she may have made a previous accusation of rape). She phoned the police (12 hours after she woke up) because she awoke alone in a hotel room and her handbag and phone were missing. As it happens she’d left them in a kebab shop the night before. When the police investigated the hotel room they realised they were dealing with a couple of footballers … and a drunk girl … and went on to try and build a case of rape. There was no actual evidence of a crime having been committed so, if CE and his friend when interviewed by the police had simply replied “No comment” to all the questions, apparently the police would not have been able to charge them.

There’s a decent summary of the case here;

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

…and this is CE’s website and a list of the ‘key and undisputed facts’;

http://chedevans.com/key-and-undisputed-facts

I’m still struggling to understand how the jury found one footballer guilty and the other not guilty. The girl says she can’t remember anything so it’s simply down to whether the jury accepted that each footballer had grounds to believe whether the girl was consenting to have sex with them. It seems very flimsy ground on which to convict a man of such a serious crime and ruin his life.

I have to say I’m a lot more sympathetic to CE now.

That crimeline writeup is interesting. If the night porter reported sounds of a couple having sex (and this is after Evans entered the room), surely by definition he didn’t just hear male voice(s) assaulting an unconscious female, but an apparently mutual consent?

As an aside, I laid off the booze because I was bored of forgetting what happened. (If you don’t remember it, then what’s the point? It may as well not have happened.) However, despite this, I can tell you that I could make rational decisions in that state.

[Joeinpoole]

Bikebikebike wrote:
Having

Bikebikebike wrote:

Having now read the first link you gave, I am frightened that you think there is any question it was rape. Maybe you should read it again and have a little think.

Calm down. This is a matter of *law* __ not your moral outrage.

The complainant claims she can’t remember anything at all. This is despite her own admission, confirmed by her own friends, that on that particular evening she had actually drunk rather less than she usually did on a night-out. Anyway, that means that she is effectively useless to the prosecution in determining whether she gave consent or not.

Therefore, to secure a conviction of rape, the prosecution have to *prove*, beyond reasonable doubt, that each of the defendants could not reasonably have believed that the complainant had consented to sexual activity with him. It is not up to the defendants to prove their innocence. As it happens the prosecution failed in the case of McDonald but were successful in the case of Evans.

It was only the defendants’ admission to the police, that they had had sex with the complainant, that allowed them to be charged in the first place. There was absolutely no other evidence of a crime having been committed. That in itself suggests to me that they were confident that they had not committed a crime.

The legal watchdog, the Criminal Cases Review Commission, has now fast-tracked Evans’ case to be re-examined in the next few weeks __ which is in itself an unusual decision. We shall see.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/18/legal-watchdog-fast-tracks-ched-evans-rape-inquiry

Personally I do think that Evans is an utter sleaze-ball and his modus operandi abhorrent and disgusting. However I’m just not convinced that he has had a fair trial and outcome. Judges and juries *are* fallible, as we know from the many miscarriages of justice over the years.

[Bikebikebike]

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:I’ve

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

I’ve just read that first link… I have to say I am siding more on the side of Evans.

Now, let me be clear, his actions were particularly unsavoury, clearly the two men were objectifying the woman and taking advantage of her intoxicated state.

But is that rape? I’m not convinced. Maybe presented with all the evidence I’d come to a different decision, but for me, from what I’ve read, I think its a bit grey to be able to convict of rape.

If the other ‘respectable’ footballers had video taped the incident as reported, then surely it would be fairly simple to watch and conclude whether the woman was actively participating, or lacking reasonable levels of consciousness to provide consent? Maybe that evidence was a deciding factor?

And that for me is the argument I am having internally. I can’t feel that hostile towards an individual taking advantage of a woman who’s inhibitions have been blunted through drink/drugs… yes its not savoury, but is that necessarily rape?

I don’t like the idea of blurring the line like this. Personally for me rape is as described previously, when no consent has or can be given.
…suggesting that intoxicated consent, or a strong implication of consent through actions may not equal consent the following day doesn’t make sense.

Why should men have soul responsibility here? Personally, when I was younger I don’t think I’d have stopped and rationally thought ‘would this woman be doing this if sober?’ …and correct me if I am wrong, this is what we are suggesting here?

So someone spikes your drink, and you don’t know what you’re doing. Someone else convinces you to go to a hotel room and fucks you up the arse. You’re so out of it you don’t complain. This, according to you, is not a crime.

[Jimmy Ray Will]

I’ve just read that first
I’ve just read that first link… I have to say I am siding more on the side of Evans.

Now, let me be clear, his actions were particularly unsavoury, clearly the two men were objectifying the woman and taking advantage of her intoxicated state.

But is that rape? I’m not convinced. Maybe presented with all the evidence I’d come to a different decision, but for me, from what I’ve read, I think its a bit grey to be able to convict of rape.

If the other ‘respectable’ footballers had video taped the incident as reported, then surely it would be fairly simple to watch and conclude whether the woman was actively participating, or lacking reasonable levels of consciousness to provide consent? Maybe that evidence was a deciding factor?

And that for me is the argument I am having internally. I can’t feel that hostile towards an individual taking advantage of a woman who’s inhibitions have been blunted through drink/drugs… yes its not savoury, but is that necessarily rape?

I don’t like the idea of blurring the line like this. Personally for me rape is as described previously, when no consent has or can be given.
…suggesting that intoxicated consent, or a strong implication of consent through actions may not equal consent the following day doesn’t make sense.

Why should men have soul responsibility here? Personally, when I was younger I don’t think I’d have stopped and rationally thought ‘would this woman be doing this if sober?’ …and correct me if I am wrong, this is what we are suggesting here?

[Author]

Replies