[Z]

I'd have thought like with most rape cases all they have for evidence is the words of the parties involved and whether they stack up against the alleged timeline of events; what else could there be? I think the word rape is a really loaded term - personally I don't consider a scenario like the Ched Evans one to be in the same ballpark as a guy stalking a woman down an alleyway and brutally violating her - do you? I think there ought to be a distinction made, there are surely degrees of rape in the same way there are degrees of murder. Somebody who plans to kill someone and somebody who accidentally kills someone both still have blood on their hands but it seems wrong to bunch them both together as "murderers" - I guess that's why I have an issue with this case and think he should be allowed to return to football. If he did do it, it certainly wasn't a violent violation of this woman.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Z

I'd have thought like with most rape cases all they have for evidence is the words of the parties involved and whether they stack up against the alleged timeline of events; what else could there be? I think the word rape is a really loaded term - personally I don't consider a scenario like the Ched Evans one to be in the same ballpark as a guy stalking a woman down an alleyway and brutally violating her - do you? I think there ought to be a distinction made, there are surely degrees of rape in the same way there are degrees of murder. Somebody who plans to kill someone and somebody who accidentally kills someone both still have blood on their hands but it seems wrong to bunch them both together as "murderers" - I guess that's why I have an issue with this case and think he should be allowed to return to football. If he did do it, it certainly wasn't a violent violation of this woman.

I do yes because you can't 'accidently' rape someone can you?

All rape is violent as it's an assault, she may have consented to sex with the other guy which is why he was not convicted of rape.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I do yes because you can't 'accidently' rape someone can you?

All rape is violent as it's an assault, she may have consented to sex with the other guy which is why he was not convicted of rape.

I agree with you, however it's a pretty dangerous game to play by enticing two strangers into a hotel room stripping naked with both of them and after having sex with the first one in front of the second guy, then telling the second one she is not interested.




.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

I agree with you, however it's a pretty dangerous game to play by enticing two strangers into a hotel room stripping naked with both of them and after having sex with the first one in front of the second guy, then telling the second one she is not interested.




.

Let's flip that, it was their room... they 'enticed' her there.

She has the right to say no to one or either of them she was not contractually bound to have sex with them that evening remember, let's not get this twisted.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Z

I'd have thought like with most rape cases all they have for evidence is the words of the parties involved and whether they stack up against the alleged timeline of events; what else could there be? I think the word rape is a really loaded term - personally I don't consider a scenario like the Ched Evans one to be in the same ballpark as a guy stalking a woman down an alleyway and brutally violating her - do you? I think there ought to be a distinction made, there are surely degrees of rape in the same way there are degrees of murder. Somebody who plans to kill someone and somebody who accidentally kills someone both still have blood on their hands but it seems wrong to bunch them both together as "murderers" - I guess that's why I have an issue with this case and think he should be allowed to return to football. If he did do it, it certainly wasn't a violent violation of this woman.

She was mortal drunk according to the reports so its not even close really

[Z]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I do yes because you can't 'accidently' rape someone can you?

All rape is violent as it's an assault, she may have consented to sex with the other guy which is why he was not convicted of rape.

You can have sex with someone and they can then turn around and say you raped them afterwards, so I'd argue you can "accidentally" rape someone. Not all rape is violent because there's a gulf of difference between being battered, tortured even, and sexually violated and being drunk in a hotel room with a group of football players and having sex with one of them while there are other people in the room and then suddenly getting cold feet about it when a second one starts to have sex with you. I just cannot take it seriously, I don't care if people think I'm horrible for "victim blaming", she's not a rape victim in my opinion. She's a victim of her own drunken stupidity.

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

She was mortal drunk according to the reports so its not even close really

Yep.

[Ninastar]

Originally Posted by Z

You can have sex with someone and they can then turn around and say you raped them afterwards, so I'd argue you can "accidentally" rape someone. Not all rape is violent because there's a gulf of difference between being battered, tortured even, and sexually violated and being drunk in a hotel room with a group of football players and having sex with one of them while there are other people in the room and then suddenly getting cold feet about it when a second one starts to have sex with you. I just cannot take it seriously, I don't care if people think I'm horrible for "victim blaming", she's not a rape victim in my opinion. She's a victim of her own drunken stupidity.

totally agree.

[Niall]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

To play the Devil's Advocate though, if someone's served their sentence do they not have the right to carry on with their lives? If not then what's the point of sentencing someone in the first place? It shouldn't really matter whether someone is famous or not since, in the eyes of the law everyone should be equal when it comes to crime and punishment.

I'm still pretty conflicted about it tbh. It's a very difficult topic.

I know, but you have to think of the implications of what it all means. If football clubs are willing to sign a ex-con who's committed a sexual offence as depraved as rape with nary a care in sight then it just says that their attitude is something along the lines of this, "Aw well he's spent his time in the corner I mean he did only rape that woman once, so who cares about what it says to our female fanbase and women in general if we hire him!" Like, it just seems iffy.

And I know everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law, but seeing as this is a high profile case with implications being played out across a highly publicised field (excuse the pun), then it kind of sets the tone for everything else. Letting him carry on in such a cushy job with no-one in else in that career really reacting to him forcing such a traumatic act on another human being is just.. no. It's not right. Moreover I'm not sure how he can have the gall to want to show his face in public after doing something of that calibre.

Originally Posted by Z

Plus, what Niall's saying is only really valid if we're to believe that Evans really did rape the victim. Everything about the trial is so shaky that I don't believe he even committed a crime; why is it that the first guy who had sex with the girl wasn't convicted of rape but Evans was? Why would you willingly go to a hotel room with a bunch of footballers if you weren't keen to have sex with a bunch of footballers? I think there are certain types of women who go after footballers because they expect to be the next Mrs Beckham, Rooney, Cole; and this young lady took it too far.

Either way, we'll never know for sure what happened but Evans maintains his innocence and has never said sorry and I think that speaks volumes about what really happened that night. You're not going to say sorry if you've got nothing to be sorry for. Let the man play football. The girl still has her anonymity as far as the masses are concerned, she can go on to lead a normal life - he'll forever be deemed a rapist in the minds of many people regardless of whether he did it or not and I think that's punishment enough.

Originally Posted by Z

You can have sex with someone and they can then turn around and say you raped them afterwards, so I'd argue you can "accidentally" rape someone. Not all rape is violent because there's a gulf of difference between being battered, tortured even, and sexually violated and being drunk in a hotel room with a group of football players and having sex with one of them while there are other people in the room and then suddenly getting cold feet about it when a second one starts to have sex with you. I just cannot take it seriously, I don't care if people think I'm horrible for "victim blaming", she's not a rape victim in my opinion. She's a victim of her own drunken stupidity.

Rape is simple: if there is an absence of consent, then it's rape. If someone is inebriated they cannot consent because they aren't in a clear and lucid state of mind. Therefore, it is rape. That's taking advantage of someone sexually. You cannot argue against that. It is not 'drunken stupidity', it's someone preying on someone else who's in a vulnerable state. Consent is a constant and enthusiastic 'Yes!' and nothing else.

The entirety of what you've said highlights the problem here, and it's that people often think that the victim 'had it coming' because they shouldn't have gone somewhere with the assailant, and quite frankly it's the most stupid argument in the book. Let's apply that logic somewhere else: would you say that if someone walking home from the train station at 10pm is at fault if they're mugged? It's ridiculous. She shouldn't have to go somewhere with the expectation that she might have to give herself up sexually. And even if she did lead them to think that that's what might happen, any normal human being knows the line in terms of consent. Like I'm pretty sure if someone was drunk etc, or even gave the slightest hint of uncomfortableness when it comes to all this stuff most sane people would know to back the fuck off. Whereas if you don't and you force yourself upon, or take advantage of someone, then that's a rather terrifying thing for someone to do, no?

To reiterate: victim blaming is absolutely the problem at hand. The misogynistic view that "She shouldn't have done this...", or "She shouldn't have done that...", or "Her skirt was too short..", is just an argument both terrifyingly disgusting as it is paper thin.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Niall

I know, but you have to think of the implications of what it all means. If football clubs are willing to sign a ex-con who's committed a sexual offence as depraved as rape with nary a care in sight then it just says that their attitude is something along the lines of this, "Aw well he's spent his time in the corner I mean he did only rape that woman once, so who cares about what it says to our female fanbase and women in general if we hire him!" Like, it just seems iffy.

And I know everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law, but seeing as this is a high profile case with implications being played out across a highly publicised field (excuse the pun), then it kind of sets the tone for everything else. Letting him carry on in such a cushy job with no-one in else in that career really reacting to him forcing such a traumatic act on another human being is just.. no. It's not right. Moreover I'm not sure how he can have the gall to want to show his face in public after doing something of that calibre.





Rape is simple: if there is an absence of consent, then it's rape. If someone is inebriated they cannot consent because they aren't in a clear and lucid state of mind. Therefore, it is rape. That's taking advantage of someone sexually. You cannot argue against that. It is not 'drunken stupidity', it's someone preying on someone else who's in a vulnerable state. Consent is a constant and enthusiastic 'Yes!' and nothing else.

The entirety of what you've said highlights the problem here, and it's that people often think that the victim 'had it coming' because they shouldn't have gone somewhere with the assailant, and quite frankly it's the most stupid argument in the book. Let's apply that logic somewhere else: would you say that if someone walking home from the train station at 10pm is at fault if they're mugged? It's ridiculous. She shouldn't have to go somewhere with the expectation that she might have to give herself up sexually. And even if she did lead them to think that that's what might happen, any normal human being knows the line in terms of consent. Like I'm pretty sure if someone was drunk etc, or even gave the slightest hint of uncomfortableness when it comes to all this stuff most sane people would know to back the fuck off. Whereas if you don't and you force yourself upon, or take advantage of someone, then that's a rather terrifying thing for someone to do, no?

To reiterate: victim blaming is absolutely the problem at hand. The misogynistic view that "She shouldn't have done this...", or "She shouldn't have done that...", or "Her skirt was too short..", is just an argument both terrifyingly disgusting as it is paper thin.

[Z]

Originally Posted by Niall

I know, but you have to think of the implications of what it all means. If football clubs are willing to sign a ex-con who's committed a sexual offence as depraved as rape with nary a care in sight then it just says that their attitude is something along the lines of this, "Aw well he's spent his time in the corner I mean he did only rape that woman once, so who cares about what it says to our female fanbase and women in general if we hire him!" Like, it just seems iffy.

And I know everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law, but seeing as this is a high profile case with implications being played out across a highly publicised field (excuse the pun), then it kind of sets the tone for everything else. Letting him carry on in such a cushy job with no-one in else in that career really reacting to him forcing such a traumatic act on another human being is just.. no. It's not right. Moreover I'm not sure how he can have the gall to want to show his face in public after doing something of that calibre.





Rape is simple: if there is an absence of consent, then it's rape. If someone is inebriated they cannot consent because they aren't in a clear and lucid state of mind. Therefore, it is rape. That's taking advantage of someone sexually. You cannot argue against that. It is not 'drunken stupidity', it's someone preying on someone else who's in a vulnerable state. Consent is a constant and enthusiastic 'Yes!' and nothing else.

The entirety of what you've said highlights the problem here, and it's that people often think that the victim 'had it coming' because they shouldn't have gone somewhere with the assailant, and quite frankly it's the most stupid argument in the book. Let's apply that logic somewhere else: would you say that if someone walking home from the train station at 10pm is at fault if they're mugged? It's ridiculous. She shouldn't have to go somewhere with the expectation that she might have to give herself up sexually. And even if she did lead them to think that that's what might happen, any normal human being knows the line in terms of consent. Like I'm pretty sure if someone was drunk etc, or even gave the slightest hint of uncomfortableness when it comes to all this stuff most sane people would know to back the fuck off. Whereas if you don't and you force yourself upon, or take advantage of someone, then that's a rather terrifying thing for someone to do, no?

To reiterate: victim blaming is absolutely the problem at hand. The misogynistic view that "She shouldn't have done this...", or "She shouldn't have done that...", or "Her skirt was too short..", is just an argument both terrifyingly disgusting as it is paper thin.

Your views are perfectly valid, just not in this instance, in my opinion. They'd be spot on if we were discussing a totally different rape case, but not this one. Rape is not simple. Rape is complicated, rape is upsetting, rape is life ruining. Rape is also not a word with a simple definition. Ched Evans is a rapist because a jury found him guilty of having non-consensual sex with an inebriated girl while he himself was inebriated and while his colleague was in the room, who had just had consensual sex with said girl. Richard Ramirez is a convicted rapist because he broke into married couples' homes, murdered the husbands and brutally raped the wives while the husbands were dying. I don't have much respect for anyone who can look me in the eye and say that these two men are equally as bad or equally as guilty as one another. They're just not. Ched Evans hasn't said sorry because he doesn't believe he did anything wrong. Saying sorry would be an admission of guilt - evidently he doesn't think he's guilty of anything and having read more about the "evidence" that sparked his trial, I don't think he's guilty of anything either.

I was sexually assaulted when I was 20 years old. I got really drunk, thrown out of a nightclub and was taken into a taxi by someone I vaguely knew, taken back to a flat and molested on a bathroom floor. That wouldn't have happened if I hadn't gotten so drunk. It was my fault for getting myself into a state where I could have been taken advantage of so easily. I don't remember if I consented or not - and how many people even ask the question "do you consent to me having sexual relations with you?" before they begin?! It's nonsense.

I can make some sense of how this came about - they left her in the hotel room where she presumably fell asleep, woke up without any of her possessions or any recollection of how she got there, called the police to see if her things had been handed in, spoke to officers who looked into it, spoke to the night porter, hauled in Evans and McDonald who freely admitted they had sex with her because they had no reason to think they'd done anything wrong and the police led the girl into believing she was a rape victim and to pursue legal proceedings against the two; the jury somehow finds Evans guilty and not McDonald on the really shaky evidence at their disposal, perhaps believing that the shaky evidence meant that the players were guilty because it does look bad on paper, and here we are now.

As for the "cushy job" part - he's playing football at a League One level, he's hardly earning Premier League wages. Maybe the police responsible for turning this into a rape trial are Sheffield Wednesday supporters

[Ammi]

..well whether he's actually guilty or not..(obviously he's been found guilty..)..but if he did know he hadn't got consent then he's served his sentence and should now be entitled to live his life without being hounded by the media and be employed in what he does and if he did feel he had consent, then it's the right thing that he's playing football again anyway because he's spent two years wrongly imprisoned..so I think either way, it's the right decision by Oldham...

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Z

Your views are perfectly valid, just not in this instance, in my opinion. They'd be spot on if we were discussing a totally different rape case, but not this one. Rape is not simple. Rape is complicated, rape is upsetting, rape is life ruining. Rape is also not a word with a simple definition. Ched Evans is a rapist because a jury found him guilty of having non-consensual sex with an inebriated girl while he himself was inebriated and while his colleague was in the room, who had just had consensual sex with said girl. Richard Ramirez is a convicted rapist because he broke into married couples' homes, murdered the husbands and brutally raped the wives while the husbands were dying. I don't have much respect for anyone who can look me in the eye and say that these two men are equally as bad or equally as guilty as one another. They're just not. Ched Evans hasn't said sorry because he doesn't believe he did anything wrong. Saying sorry would be an admission of guilt - evidently he doesn't think he's guilty of anything and having read more about the "evidence" that sparked his trial, I don't think he's guilty of anything either.

I was sexually assaulted when I was 20 years old. I got really drunk, thrown out of a nightclub and was taken into a taxi by someone I vaguely knew, taken back to a flat and molested on a bathroom floor. That wouldn't have happened if I hadn't gotten so drunk. It was my fault for getting myself into a state where I could have been taken advantage of so easily. I don't remember if I consented or not - and how many people even ask the question "do you consent to me having sexual relations with you?" before they begin?! It's nonsense.

I can make some sense of how this came about - they left her in the hotel room where she presumably fell asleep, woke up without any of her possessions or any recollection of how she got there, called the police to see if her things had been handed in, spoke to officers who looked into it, spoke to the night porter, hauled in Evans and McDonald who freely admitted they had sex with her because they had no reason to think they'd done anything wrong and the police led the girl into believing she was a rape victim and to pursue legal proceedings against the two; the jury somehow finds Evans guilty and not McDonald on the really shaky evidence at their disposal, perhaps believing that the shaky evidence meant that the players were guilty because it does look bad on paper, and here we are now.

As for the "cushy job" part - he's playing football at a League One level, he's hardly earning Premier League wages. Maybe the police responsible for turning this into a rape trial are Sheffield Wednesday supporters

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Z

Your views are perfectly valid, just not in this instance, in my opinion. They'd be spot on if we were discussing a totally different rape case, but not this one. Rape is not simple. Rape is complicated, rape is upsetting, rape is life ruining. Rape is also not a word with a simple definition. Ched Evans is a rapist because a jury found him guilty of having non-consensual sex with an inebriated girl while he himself was inebriated and while his colleague was in the room, who had just had consensual sex with said girl. Richard Ramirez is a convicted rapist because he broke into married couples' homes, murdered the husbands and brutally raped the wives while the husbands were dying. I don't have much respect for anyone who can look me in the eye and say that these two men are equally as bad or equally as guilty as one another. They're just not. Ched Evans hasn't said sorry because he doesn't believe he did anything wrong. Saying sorry would be an admission of guilt - evidently he doesn't think he's guilty of anything and having read more about the "evidence" that sparked his trial, I don't think he's guilty of anything either.

I was sexually assaulted when I was 20 years old. I got really drunk, thrown out of a nightclub and was taken into a taxi by someone I vaguely knew, taken back to a flat and molested on a bathroom floor. That wouldn't have happened if I hadn't gotten so drunk. It was my fault for getting myself into a state where I could have been taken advantage of so easily. I don't remember if I consented or not - and how many people even ask the question "do you consent to me having sexual relations with you?" before they begin?! It's nonsense.

I can make some sense of how this came about - they left her in the hotel room where she presumably fell asleep, woke up without any of her possessions or any recollection of how she got there, called the police to see if her things had been handed in, spoke to officers who looked into it, spoke to the night porter, hauled in Evans and McDonald who freely admitted they had sex with her because they had no reason to think they'd done anything wrong and the police led the girl into believing she was a rape victim and to pursue legal proceedings against the two; the jury somehow finds Evans guilty and not McDonald on the really shaky evidence at their disposal, perhaps believing that the shaky evidence meant that the players were guilty because it does look bad on paper, and here we are now.

As for the "cushy job" part - he's playing football at a League One level, he's hardly earning Premier League wages. Maybe the police responsible for turning this into a rape trial are Sheffield Wednesday supporters

well said Z and sorry for your horrible experience

[kirklancaster]

What a brilliant and eloquently written post Z. I am sorry to hear what happened to you, but must say I agree with what you have to say on this case:

I have analysed as much of the available documentation on this case as I can find and I agree totally with you, Nedusa and others that the verdict ‘stinks to high heaven’. There are so many anomalies and unaired flaws in the crown’s evidence that I feel sorry for Evans.

I will not go into all of the discrepancies I believe I have discovered because it will take another long post which I know people are fed up of from me, but I will air just a couple of points.

Drugs and alcohol are mind-altering substances. Excessive intake of either alters the physiological state of the brain to such a degree from its normal state that ‘temporary insanity’ can occur, yet I do not know of one instance where any judge has conceded this fact in any criminal case or allowed it as a mitigating factor when sentencing a male who committed a crime whilst ‘drugged up’ or ‘pissed out of his brains.

Yet the judiciary have no problem at all in determining that when a female in a rape trial is drugged or drunk from self administered drugs and drink, it affects her mental capacity to such a degree that it renders her; “in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse”.

In this particular case, the same ‘complainant’ who was deemed to be so drunk that she was incapable of consenting to sex - even when the only testimony was that she had indeed consented – could eat pizza from a box at sometime after 3 am, and sometime after 4.15 am she had the spatial awareness to know that she was in an hotel room, and the lucidity of mind to ask McDonald "You're not going to leave me, are you?"

Some may recall very famous footage of David Hasselhof being so drunk that he couldn’t talk, stand up to eat pizza, or even find his mouth with the pizza. I am sure this constitutes being very drunk – far more drunk than the complainant was on the night in question (who could walk, talk and stand up and eat pizza) - but I am certain that even in his advanced state of drunkenness, Hasselhoff would certainly had known had someone tried to bugger him or perform oral sex on him.

So how drunk does someone really have to be, in order not to be aware that someone is performing non-consensual oral sex on them, or full intercourse with all the penetration, bumping and grinding, and grunting and groaning involved, before screaming out or fighting the ‘rapist’ off?

I would say virtually comatose.

Yet the complainant here was clearly not comatose according to the evidence, and she bore no traces of physical injury or other marks consistent with being forcibly raped or fighting off her attacker. Nor did she scream, cry out, or fight off any attacker, because in his evidence, Burrough - the Night Porter - was directly outside the door while Evans was having sex with her , but testified only to hearing the sounds of sexual intercourse and nothing else to concern him.

Much has been made of the fact that the sexual activity was ‘filmed’ by two friends of Evans and I believe this was viewed as particularly degenerate by both judge and jury, as indeed by most on here, but I am more interested in whether the film was produced in court as evidence by either side because surely it would at the very least give some idea of the circumstances under which the sex was occurring.

I am even more interested in the fact that the filming occurred only until “the room curtains were closed”, and I’d like to know who closed them and why, because it destroys any contention that the two filmed at Evans’ behest or with his awareness, because he would hardly close the curtains or allow them to be closed if he was complicit in the filming.

If only there was the space for more.

Anyway Z, I applaud you.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Z

As for the "cushy job" part - he's playing football at a League One level, he's hardly earning Premier League wages. Maybe the police responsible for turning this into a rape trial are Sheffield Wednesday supporters

Just a small point but he's earning £2k a week reportedly... a £104k salary is pretty bloody cushy

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Z

You can have sex with someone and they can then turn around and say you raped them afterwards, so I'd argue you can "accidentally" rape someone. Not all rape is violent because there's a gulf of difference between being battered, tortured even, and sexually violated and being drunk in a hotel room with a group of football players and having sex with one of them while there are other people in the room and then suddenly getting cold feet about it when a second one starts to have sex with you. I just cannot take it seriously, I don't care if people think I'm horrible for "victim blaming", she's not a rape victim in my opinion. She's a victim of her own drunken stupidity.



Yep.

A man cannot accidentally rape a woman was the point based on your murder analogy, murder may be subject to degrees but sex without consent is always rape... there are no good rapes.
Rape is as a rule defined as a sexual violation.
I have to say I do find your opinion distasteful on this subject, no matter how drunk and suggestible she was not obliged to have sex with anyone in that room.