[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

[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.

[Livia]

Don't get drunk. Take care of your own safety... then you don't have to feel bad and change your mind in the morning when it all swims into terrible clarity.

[Niall]

Originally Posted by Livia

Don't get drunk. Take care of your own safety... then you don't have to feel bad and change your mind in the morning when it all swims into terrible clarity.

Or better yet, don't prey on people when they're not able to take care of their own safety. A far more compassionate and sane argument.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Niall

Or better yet, don't prey on people when they're not able to take care of their own safety. A far more compassionate and sane argument.

Or to clarify... don't rape anyone.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Niall

Or better yet, don't prey on people when they're not able to take care of their own safety. A far more compassionate and sane argument.

My argument is sane. Don't get so pissed you can't take care of yourself.

I am totally sympathetic to women who are raped. It's an appalling crime. But sometimes women do make false allegations, sometimes a small fraction of women who report a rape lie, sometimes they can't remember and sometimes they have regrets when they sober up. And sympathy fades when you hear she'd already tried to press charges against some rugby players for the same thing previously.

So... while I'm sympathetic to women (and men for that matter) who are subjected to rape, you do have to take care of your own safety and not put yourself in harms way. I am also sympathetic also to people who get knocked down by cars. But if they're walking up the motorway pissed... not so much.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Livia

My argument is sane. Don't get so pissed you can't take care of yourself.

I am totally sympathetic to women who are raped. It's an appalling crime. But sometimes women do make false allegations, sometimes a small fraction of women who report a rape lie, sometimes they can't remember and sometimes they have regrets when they sober up. And sympathy fades when you hear she'd already tried to press charges against some rugby players for the same thing previously.

So... while I'm sympathetic to women (and men for that matter) who are subjected to rape, you do have to take care of your own safety and not put yourself in harms way. I am also sympathetic also to people who get knocked down by cars. But if they're walking up the motorway pissed... not so much.

100% correct. dont lie about it, dont get so drunk you dont even know what youre doing.....even after the event some people are so drunk they cant even remember what happened let alone if they had sex with consent. personal responsibility is key as is telling the truth. anyone who makes totally falsified accusations simply must go to prison. The damage these lies do is immeasurable. of course we all want bad people and criminals punished. but in addition to rapists , killers and violent criminals, perjury and false accusation is also a major criminal offence. Fortunately some false accusers have gone to prison but the radical man hating feminists wouldnt accept such punishment should happen.....


heres a tale for your perusal.....I wonder how many lives , how much tax payers money this false accuser wasted with all the lies

https://toysoldier.wordpress.com/201...inist-support/


Jailed false accuser draws feminist support
Posted on June 27, 2014 by Toysoldier Rhiannon Brooker accused her former boyfriend of rape and assault. Her accusations against Paul Fensome landed the man in jail for 37 days. While imprisoned, someone claimed that he was a pedophile and he had to be placed in protective custody.

However, the evidence showed that Brooker’s accusations were false:

Alibis, evidence from Fensome’s phone and his work shift patterns undermined Brooker’s accounts. Injuries were judged to have been self-inflicted and the police dropped their investigations into Fensome and turned their attention on Brooker.

Brooker initially told police she had made false accusations. But when she was charged with perverting the course of justice she retracted her confession. She was found guilty of 12 offences relating to false allegations of five rapes, six assaults and one false imprisonment.

The judge sentenced Brooker to three and a half years, which prompted outrage from feminists:

The support and campaign group Women Against Rape (WAR) was among more than a dozen organisations and lawyers who wrote to the judge arguing that a harsh sentence would put women off coming forward to report rapes for fear they would not be believed.

They wrote: “The prosecution was not in the public interest. A prison sentence will put even more women off reporting, enabling even more attacks from violent men. The resources spent on prosecuting Ms Brooker should have been put into prosecuting rapists and other violent men

[Ammi]

..surely there is no question that he raped her...the same as someone is innocent until proven guilty, once proven guilty then that's what they are in the eyes of the law and there is no questioning of that..?...I mean, whether violent rape or not..rape is rape and a violation of another person and the courts must have been convinced of his guilt as the other guy was found innocent...it's more whether he should be allowed to play football professionally again and that really is up to whether a team are prepared for that to happen..?...

[Christmas Dynasnow]

He could sign for Rape Rovers in Scotland

[Kizzy]

That's a really odd analogy, if you are drunk on the road you are not deliberately targeted by drivers are you?... You would have to take liability but it would still be an accident.
Nobody is raped by accident.
People do get drunk all the time, it's their choice, just as it's a choice to decide if your partner is consenting or not.... if that is a gray area don't have sex with them.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

That's a really odd analogy, if you are drunk on the road you are not deliberately targeted by drivers are you?... You would have to take liability but it would still be an accident.
Nobody is raped by accident.
People do get drunk all the time, it's their choice, just as it's a choice to decide if your partner is consenting or not.... if that is a gray area don't have sex with them.

What if the person who rapes is drunk? Or under the influence of some kind of drug? Is it okay for women to be irresponsible and out of control, but not men? It's okay for women to be drunk enough to be taken advantage of, but men must be exemplary and sober enough always to make the right decision? When people drink their judgement is impaired - both men and women.

And it's a good analogy. It's about deliberately putting yourself in harms way by getting so drunk you can't make good decisions.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

What if the person who rapes is drunk? Or under the influence of some kind of drug? Is it okay for women to be irresponsible and out of control, but not men? It's okay for women to be drunk enough to be taken advantage of, but men must be exemplary and sober enough always to make the right decision? When people drink their judgement is impaired - both men and women.

And it's a good analogy. It's about deliberately putting yourself in harms way by getting so drunk you can't make good decisions.

I'm sorry but you know in law if your penis works you can't be classed as 'out of control'
Unless you pass out and your penis goes looking for a vagina you know what you're doing.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I'm sorry but you know in law if your penis works you can't be classed as 'out of control'
Unless you pass out and your penis goes looking for a vagina you know what you're doing.

LOL... This is almost Zen level wrong.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

LOL... This is almost Zen level wrong.

Could you explain your reasoning then please livia?
If a man is capable of acheiving an erection whilst drunk can he truly be that 'out of control'? If so then why is this not used as defence in rape cases?
' It wasn't my fault I was drunk and out of control when I raped that woman' It just wouldn't wash.

'When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

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

[Locke.]

Oldham currently having a board meeting to decide whether to go through with the signing after 20k people signed a petition against it

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Locke.

Oldham currently having a board meeting to decide whether to go through with the signing after 20k people signed a petition against it

meh - I could get a bigger petition to get Cadbury's to start selling chocolate coins again



However now a sponsor is threatening to leave and that talks the talk

[Nedusa]

My guess is they will not sign him.





.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

My guess is they will not sign him.





.

Correct
He is Toxic

[the truth]

I hope he is allowed to resume his career of work. This campaign is mental. The feminazis now want to ensure all MEN who commit a crime are banned from work? If we apply this mental state of affairs then all ex prisoners must never be allowed to work again? wow. how much will that help the economy and the country?