Ched Evans

[parklane1]

You obviously missed the word 'constantly' and inadvertently kind of proved my point.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk Pro

To you maybe but not to me, what this case has proved ( once again) is that is should be the same for both((all) partys. Either name those before the case or after its been through the courts. The people who get cleared of any offense have to live through hell while the one who is accusing others get off without being named. That is not fair.

 

[tommysvr]

To you maybe but not to me, what this case has proved ( once again) is that is should be the same for both((all) partys. Either name those before the case or after its been through the courts. The people who get cleared of any offense have to live through hell while the one who is accusing others get off without being named. That is not fair.

That proves how little you understand these kinds of cases. You think the girl is now sitting at home getting on with her life as normal? Do a quick search on Twitter and see which of the two parties is copping the abuse.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk Pro

 

[tbarnett14]

She was so drunk she couldn't speak. Therefore she couldn't consent. Evans came into the room without her knowledge and didn't speak to her. He is a predator, she is a victim and the CJS should have reflected this. Instead he is out on the street and "moving on with his life" where as the victim is still traumatised. A shocking result.

 

[scaramanga]

She was so drunk she couldn't speak. Therefore she couldn't consent. Evans came into the room without her knowledge and didn't speak to her. He is a predator, she is a victim and the CJS should have reflected this. Instead he is out on the street and "moving on with his life" where as the victim is still traumatised. A shocking result.

What would you expect her to have said?

"I give you formal consent to put you rooster in me, but you'll need it in writing if you want to cum on my tits"?

At what level of sex does consent need renewing? Should I ask the wife for permission before flipping her over? If I have permission to grab her right tit do I need to ask if I can grab the left? Consent can be shown from actions as well as words.

There's not enough evidence to say whether Evans is guilty or innocent (hence the verdict), but statements like yours are not only false they're also dangerous in the hands of feminazis

 

[glasgowspur]

She was so drunk she couldn't speak. Therefore she couldn't consent. Evans came into the room without her knowledge and didn't speak to her. He is a predator, she is a victim and the CJS should have reflected this. Instead he is out on the street and "moving on with his life" where as the victim is still traumatised. A shocking result.

Proof?
If the women was to drunk to consent for evens then is it not reasonable to think she was to drunk to consent for the other guy?
I happen to think you're probably correct but the facts of the case are not strong enough to warrant a conviction and you can't convict on anything other than facts

 

[parklane1]

That proves how little you understand these kinds of cases. You think the girl is now sitting at home getting on with her life as normal? Do a quick search on Twitter and see which of the two parties is copping the abuse.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk Pro

And you do? i take it you must work in the legal business ( or maybe a social worker which would explain a lot).

 

[thfcsteff]

What would you expect her to have said?

"I give you formal consent to put you rooster in me, but you'll need it in writing if you want to cum on my tits"?

At what level of sex does consent need renewing? Should I ask the wife for permission before flipping her over? If I have permission to grab her right tit do I need to ask if I can grab the left? Consent can be shown from actions as well as words.

There's not enough evidence to say whether Evans is guilty or innocent (hence the verdict), but statements like yours are not only false they're also dangerous in the hands of feminazis

1) Before asking that question in this case,I'd say KNOWING he was even part of whatever equation there was would've been an important detail.
2) Being unconscious is, personally, speaking, a pretty strong message that perhaps consent is not only denied but at that stage unappealing. What sort of clam gets a kick out of shagging an unconscious/passed out person? This, to be clear, is an answer to your question.

 

[scaramanga]

1) Before asking that question in this case,I'd say KNOWING he was even part of whatever equation there was would've been an important detail.
2) Being unconscious is, personally, speaking, a pretty strong message that perhaps consent is not only denied but at that stage unappealing. What sort of clam gets a kick out of shagging an unconscious/passed out person? This, to be clear, is an answer to your question.

I don't think she was unconscious. The testimony I've read stated that she was talking to, at times instructing, Evans.

Some of the facts are discussed here:
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

One important point to note. In order to secure a conviction, the prosecution not only has to prove that she didn't consent, but also that Evans had reason to believe she wasn't consenting. What I've seen of the evidence doesn't show that, no matter what I think of his actions.

 

[thfcsteff]

I don't think she was unconscious. The testimony I've read stated that she was talking to, at times instructing, Evans.

Some of the facts are discussed here:
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

One important point to note. In order to secure a conviction, the prosecution not only has to prove that she didn't consent, but also that Evans had reason to believe she wasn't consenting. What I've seen of the evidence doesn't show that, no matter what I think of his actions.

Conflicting notes on the case for sure. There were reports form before that she was unconscious. Still (and frankly, I personally find it sad this a point of debate - I understand you are speaking strictly legally Scara and are not 'validating' anything which happened by the way) this nugget from the link you posted offers some compelling evidence...

However the circumstances in which the two men met X are vastly different. McDonald met X, engaged her in conversation and took her to the hotel. Evans simply arrived once McDonald and X were having sex and, putting it starkly, joined in without saying a word. Thus the jury could have concluded that, while X was too drunk to consent, she may have given McDonald a reasonable belief that she was consenting, whereas Evans, not having the benefit of having spoken to X, had not established “reasonable belief” in consent before engaging in intercourse.

I mean, please. I think we should start debating how bright the light was in the room, was there, at any time, a garment on her head, did she know whether it was the fudgewit she invited back or the predator who slipped in the door and started poking her without 'words' being spoken, how do we know she ever saw him, I mean, let's face the potential facts, if her back was to the hotel door she might never have ever seen him!!!!! Does the fact she was quite possibly too drunk to determine what was going where constitute 'implied consent'? FFS. Sorry. He is a clam. And frankly, I am disappointed none of the questions I have raised in a few minutes were asked, given the hair-splitting, divisive lawyerly flimflam which obviously went down in this case...as for the use of her past sexual history, disgraceful! Based on what? The fact Ched Evans heard her say 'fudge me harder'? Please. Again, if her back was to the door he snuck his low-life arse through for a quick poke, then it is possible she had no clue whatsoever what was going on, given that he was not an invitee.

 

[r-u-s-x01]

Conflicting notes on the case for sure. There were reports form before that she was unconscious. Still (and frankly, I personally find it sad this a point of debate - I understand you are speaking strictly legally Scara and are not 'validating' anything which happened by the way) this nugget from the link you posted offers some compelling evidence...

However the circumstances in which the two men met X are vastly different. McDonald met X, engaged her in conversation and took her to the hotel. Evans simply arrived once McDonald and X were having sex and, putting it starkly, joined in without saying a word. Thus the jury could have concluded that, while X was too drunk to consent, she may have given McDonald a reasonable belief that she was consenting, whereas Evans, not having the benefit of having spoken to X, had not established “reasonable belief” in consent before engaging in intercourse.

I mean, please. I think we should start debating how bright the light was in the room, was there, at any time, a garment on her head, did she know whether it was the fudgewit she invited back or the predator who slipped in the door and started poking her without 'words' being spoken, how do we know she ever saw him, I mean, let's face the potential facts, if her back was to the hotel door she might never have ever seen him!!!!! Does the fact she was quite possibly too drunk to determine what was going where constitute 'implied consent'? FFS. Sorry. He is a clam. And frankly, I am disappointed none of the questions I have raised in a few minutes were asked, given the hair-splitting, divisive lawyerly hogwash which obviously went down in this case...as for the use of her past sexual history, disgraceful! Based on what? The fact Ched Evans heard her say 'fudge me harder'? Please. Again, if her back was to the door he snuck his low-life arse through for a quick poke, then it is possible she had no clue whatsoever what was going on, given that he was not an invitee.

Lots of if's in that statement, thought we don't convict on if's

 

[thfcsteff]

Lots of if's in that statement, thought we don't convict on if's

Lots of 'ifs' in all of it. You have to ask why he was convicted in the first place then. This case has nothing to do with 'ifs' and everything to do with the weight and power of legal muscle i.e. who can conjure the biggest loopholes to jump through. I would like to have seen some of my 'ifs' pursued for similar reasons.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Lots of 'ifs' in all of it. You have to ask why he was convicted in the first place then. This case has nothing to do with 'ifs' and everything to do with the weight and power of legal muscle i.e. who can conjure the biggest loopholes to jump through. I would like to have seen some of my 'ifs' pursued for similar reasons.

He was found not guilty on appeal - you cant point to the original conviction as proof that he was guilty and then ignore the appeal as proof he was found not guilt (he had the same muscle in both).

You are the only one saying those "if's" as the girl has said she cant remember anything and the guys have said it did not happen like that.

Waking up and not remembering if you gave consent is not the same as not being able to give consent and nor should it be. Alcohol effects everyone differently and some people will suffer memory loss while appearing pretty sober.

 

[tommysvr]

He was found not guilty on appeal - you cant point to the original conviction as proof that he was guilty and then ignore the appeal as proof he was found not guilt (he had the same muscle in both).

You are the only one saying those "if's" as the girl has said she cant remember anything and the guys have said it did not happen like that.

Waking up and not remembering if you gave consent is not the same as not being able to give consent and nor should it be. Alcohol effects everyone differently and some people will suffer memory loss while appearing pretty sober.

Surely you don't believe that nonsense you just wrote? There's no way the police would ever have gone near court if it was just a case of her forgetting and regretting.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk Pro

 

[r-u-s-x]

Surely you don't believe that nonsense you just wrote? There's no way the police would ever have gone near court if it was just a case of her forgetting and regretting.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk Pro

Scaras post above has the Facts as reported, if you have any other facts can you please show them rather than just state that they are nonsense. I would rather not base a judgment on the fact the CPS / police have decided to prosecute but you go ahead if you want.

to quote Scaras post https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

"The facts, as reported, can be briefly summarised: Ched Evans was originally tried with a co-defendant, and fellow footballer, Clayton McDonald, in April 2012. On 29 May 2011, Evans and McDonald had sex with the complainant, X, in a hotel room. McDonald had met X on a night out, taken her back to the hotel room, and had alerted Evans that he had “got a girl”. Evans duly arrived, made his way to the room and, seeing McDonald and X having intercourse, joined in. X woke up the following morning, professing to have no memory at what had taken place. Both men admitted that they had had sex with X, and were charged with rape, on the basis that X was too drunk to consent, and that neither man reasonably believed that she was consenting. Both men asserted that they reasonably believed that the complainant was an enthusiastic and consenting party. At the first trial, McDonald was acquitted. Evans was convicted and sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment, of which he served the standard half before being released on licence."


" X has never asserted that she was raped. She has always simply maintained that she had no memory of what happened. It was the prosecution case – the case theory of the Crown Prosecution Service – that she was raped. The defence case was based not on the “usual” he said/ she said dispute over consent, but rather he said/ she can’t remember. There is absolutely no safe basis for suggesting she has lied, or, to quell the more hysterical calls, that she should be prosecuted on the basis of Evans’ acquittal."

 

[scaramanga]

Scaras post above has the Facts as reported, if you have any other facts can you please show them rather than just state that they are nonsense. I would rather not base a judgment on the fact the CPS / police have decided to prosecute but you go ahead if you want.

to quote Scaras post https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

"The facts, as reported, can be briefly summarised: Ched Evans was originally tried with a co-defendant, and fellow footballer, Clayton McDonald, in April 2012. On 29 May 2011, Evans and McDonald had sex with the complainant, X, in a hotel room. McDonald had met X on a night out, taken her back to the hotel room, and had alerted Evans that he had “got a girl”. Evans duly arrived, made his way to the room and, seeing McDonald and X having intercourse, joined in. X woke up the following morning, professing to have no memory at what had taken place. Both men admitted that they had had sex with X, and were charged with rape, on the basis that X was too drunk to consent, and that neither man reasonably believed that she was consenting. Both men asserted that they reasonably believed that the complainant was an enthusiastic and consenting party. At the first trial, McDonald was acquitted. Evans was convicted and sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment, of which he served the standard half before being released on licence."


" X has never asserted that she was raped. She has always simply maintained that she had no memory of what happened. It was the prosecution case – the case theory of the Crown Prosecution Service – that she was raped. The defence case was based not on the “usual” he said/ she said dispute over consent, but rather he said/ she can’t remember. There is absolutely no safe basis for suggesting she has lied, or, to quell the more hysterical calls, that she should be prosecuted on the basis of Evans’ acquittal."

I think we have to remember that, despite their poor life choices, the CPS and the police force are staffed with ambitious people who want to make careers for themselves.

The opportunity to try a footballer probably got everyone involved a little too excited. They ended up bringing a case that, once the defence had its brick in order, was never going anywhere.

 

[thfcsteff]

I think we have to remember that, despite their poor life choices, the CPS and the police force are staffed with ambitious people who want to make careers for themselves.

The opportunity to try a footballer probably got everyone involved a little too excited. They ended up bringing a case that, once the defence had its brick in order, was never going anywhere.

Your first comments are unbelievable. Are you genuinely saying that wanting to work in CPS is a 'poor life choice'? No mate, a 'poor life choice' is swanning about a fudging pub getting tinkled up and larging it because you're a famous footballer in a small town and then thinking you can just show up at any party you like and stick your dingdong wherever you like. THAT is a 'poor life choice' if, in fact, you have a life. Wanting to protect young people? A fudging NOBLE one my friend, noble...

Your second one falls flatter than a brick souffle...there was a case, it was tried, he was banged up for it and his legal team found a loophole. Again, if she had the money, and if it was possible, I am sure she could play the margins and appeal the appeal.

 

[thfcsteff]

He was found not guilty on appeal - you cant point to the original conviction as proof that he was guilty and then ignore the appeal as proof he was found not guilt (he had the same muscle in both).

You are the only one saying those "if's" as the girl has said she cant remember anything and the guys have said it did not happen like that.

Waking up and not remembering if you gave consent is not the same as not being able to give consent and nor should it be. Alcohol effects everyone differently and some people will suffer memory loss while appearing pretty sober.

I had written some long fudging response, but what is the point? I think you're wrong to view it the way you do, you think I'm wrong, so what really IS point?
I will tell you this much...if it is now 'legally OK' to shag women who are too drunk to communicate or remember what has happened, then we are in some sad fudging times.

 

[thfcsteff]

Surely you don't believe that nonsense you just wrote? There's no way the police would ever have gone near court if it was just a case of her forgetting and regretting.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk Pro

Nah, leave it mate, apparently that was all because of some tossers who made 'poor life choices' and wanted to 'further their careers'...

 

[r-u-s-x01]

I had written some long fudgeing response, but what is the point? I think you're wrong to view it the way you do, you think I'm wrong, so what really IS point?
I will tell you this much...if it is now 'legally OK' to shag women who are too drunk to communicate or remember what has happened, then we are in some sad fudgeing times.

Agreed, I have also deleted a lot of responses as it is a very important and sensitive subject.

I guess you have seen enough to suggest she wasn't capable to communicate, I have not

 

[thfcsteff]

Agreed, I have also deleted a lot of responses as it is a very important and sensitive subject.

I guess you have seen enough to suggest she wasn't capable to communicate, I have not

I have certainly read enough to suggest that. More importantly (to me) I have read more than enough to suggest that Evans was not part of the initial equation and showed up at a scene where the lady was not in control.