Ched Evans

Frank the tank

I'd just like to say...............again
Sun Apr 24, 2016 12:19 am

I believe he is a man of low moral standards and poor judgement, But, from what I have read and heard I would not have found him guilty of rape.

webboo

Pinno wrote:

If there was any doubt that the victim was too drunk and in no fit state to consent then it may not be rape but in that scenario, he should never have proceeded. Rich footballers are hardly lacking on sexual opportunities.

One might postulate what someone gets out of sex with someone who is so passive I.e. Virtually unconscious
It doesn't seem that far from necrophilia except they are still warm.

surrey_commuter

Webboo wrote:

Pinno wrote:

If there was any doubt that the victim was too drunk and in no fit state to consent then it may not be rape but in that scenario, he should never have proceeded. Rich footballers are hardly lacking on sexual opportunities.

One might postulate what someone gets out of sex with someone who is so passive I.e. Virtually unconscious
It doesn't seem that far from necrophilia except they are still warm.

The point of the appeal is that she was a long way off being "virtually unconscious"

pinno

The point is SC, that if she was too drunk to consent 'properly' (for want of a better word), then why would anyone want to have sex with someone that inebriated? It's perverse.

tangled_metal

It seems she had used some phrases with Ched Evans and the other 2 guys that suggest Evans could have had her drunken consent. Something about doing the action harder and in a favoured position too. As much as you wouldn't it seems some have no issue over drunken consent. The law has no qualms about the legality of drunken consent, it's allowed. Of course if the prosecution had won the reason would have been because they presented a case that removed all doubt from the jury's mind that Evans could have no reasonable understanding that he had consent. Or something like that. Not guilty means guilty case has not been.proven.beyond all reasonable doubt. Even if the jury felt he had committed rape the couldn't.convict if there's.any doubt introduced. It's all about preventing the innocent being convicted, although that's never happened has it!!!!

ballysmate

Ched Evans originally got found guilty because the woman concerned couldn't remember consenting.
Now a woman escapes jail for having sex with a 14 year old because she couldn't remember because she was so drunk.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... 4-her.html

Not even worth debating if a man would have walked or not.

My point is that we have seemed to become a country where it is possible to abdicate responsibility for your actions and just blame drink.

homers_double

Well thats me in the clear.

"did you eat thise biscuits?"

"I don't know, I was drunk, blame that"

pinno

Ballysmate wrote:

Ched Evans originally got found guilty because the woman concerned couldn't remember consenting.
Now a woman escapes jail for having sex with a 14 year old because she couldn't remember because she was so drunk.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... 4-her.html

Not even worth debating if a man would have walked or not.

My point is that we have seemed to become a country where it is possible to abdicate responsibility for your actions and just blame drink.

The 14 year old complained?!? FFS. If I had such an encounter at 14, I would have smiled for Britain.

Get that second Kebab into ya HD.

surrey_commuter

Pinno wrote:

The point is SC, that if she was too drunk to consent 'properly' (for want of a better word), then why would anyone want to have sex with someone that inebriated? It's perverse.

He got off because he proved she was a long way from being passive or virtually unconscious.

He may have the morals of gutter rat but on this occasion was not guilty of rape.