Ched Evans situation

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

I wonder how many people commenting on the law in this case have actually read the law of either sexual offences or evidence.

I was going to get into the whys and wherefores of consent, but I suspect it will just wind me up, particularly when so many inferences are being made just in the context of this thread. I will leave you with the only point that Ian left out from "The Secret Barrister"'s blog post:

10. What does this whole affair say about our society?

Christ knows. Nothing good.

[JohnL]

alice Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> has she got any claim against the police for

> putting this case forward.

CPS would do that these days.

[JohnL]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Drunken consent is still consent

>

Not my definition of Drunk (we don't mean tipsy here - we mean unconscious or out on their feet)

- mind you who would want to do anything to someone in the state of my definition of drunk unless

they're completely weird (deeply unattractive state to be in).

[DaveR]

The law doesn't define drunk - it defines consent:

"a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice."

So drunken consent is consent unless it removes capacity. However, if a person is unconscious then it is assumed both that they did not consent and that the suspect did not reasonably believe that they consented.

[JohnL]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The law doesn't define drunk - it defines

> consent:

>

> "a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has

> the freedom and capacity to make that choice."

>

> So drunken consent is consent unless it removes

> capacity. However, if a person is unconscious

> then it is assumed both that they did not consent

> and that the suspect did not reasonably believe

> that they consented.

There comes a time if you drink enough (15 pints maybe)

where you can't make a reasoned decision, been there

and been attacked in that state - and you've lost the

reasoning to get yourself out of it. Alcohol is a

terrible drug.

By the way - when this happened I've never seen the Police

so angry when I said my memory (which was there on morphine)

had gone - so you've decided to let these people get away with it

- I just said yes and so should that girl to be honest).

[DaveR]

"There comes a time if you drink enough (15 pints maybe)

where you can't make a reasoned decision" = lack of capacity

[Huggers]

She'd fallen over in the takeaway. left her handbag there. That is pretty drunk. The room was dark. She may not even have known a second man was having sex with her. Maybe that was part of their 'joke'in 'bagging a drunk one'.

[Mick Mac]

Otta Wrote:

------------------------------------------

> Erm, except the case wasn't written about the

> case.

Semantics - but having read your OP on this thread you might want to read the case itself. It's definitely interesting and the core details of the case are a better insight than anv second hand opinion I'd have thought.

[Mick Mac]

JohnL Wrote:

----------------------------

> let off - I just said yes and so should that girl to be

> honest).

Not really - it was important that it was tested and evidenced that she wasn't raped - so they weren't let off with anything

What was perhaps wrong here is that there seemed to be an assumption by police that because she was too drunk to remember that it was therefore rape.

This was tested and found not to be the case which is also important.

And because she said she couldn't remember she then obviously couldn't then give evidence about something she couldn't remember, hence other testimonies were necessary to be taken into consideration about other times when she had drunken sex in an attempt to evidence whether the conduct claimed by the defendants was consistent.

[Otta]

Huggers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> She'd fallen over in the takeaway. left her

> handbag there. That is pretty drunk. The room was

> dark. She may not even have known a second man was

> having sex with her. Maybe that was part of their

> 'joke'in 'bagging a drunk one'.

But he can't have known about what happened in the take away.

Don't want to sound like I'm defending the sleaze bag, just find the whole thing grim yet interesting.

[Otta]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Otta Wrote:

> ------------------------------------------

> > Erm, except the case wasn't written about the

> > case.

>

>

> Semantics - but having read your OP on this thread

> you might want to read the case itself. It's

> definitely interesting and the core details of the

> case are a better insight than anv second hand

> opinion I'd have thought.

Agreed. But the case wasn't available to read when I posted the OP.

[Mick Mac]

And I think that's the trouble - media jump to conclusions too early. As did the football clubs etc.

I do find it surprising that his fiancee has stood by him though - as although he's not a rapist, he is a low moral case who treated a woman like a notch on a bedpost and no doubt took advantage of her in a situation that was just a bucket list option for him and his mate. All pretty disturbing.

[Otta]

No doubt. Rape or no rape, it was sleazy and grim.

[*Bob*]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I do find it surprising that his fiancee has stood

> by him though

I suppose she had to weigh it up.

On the one hand - her betrothed in a Travelodge taking it it turns with his mate to have a go on someone who was so drunk she can?t even remember the encounter.

On the other hand - his ?20,000/week wage and her unlikelihood of bagging an alternative.

It seems she has decided that everyone deserves a second chance. It's a real victory for womankind.

[titch juicy]

The media seem to have made up their mind (as do most on here) about the facts regardless of the judge's verdict.

[LadyNorwood]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mick Mac Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I do find it surprising that his fiancee has

> stood

> > by him though

>

>

> I suppose she had to weigh it up.

>

>

> On the one hand - her betrothed in a Travelodge

> taking it it turns with his mate to have a go on

> someone who was so drunk she can?t even remember

> the encounter.

>

> On the other hand - his ?20,000/week wage and her

> unlikelihood of bagging an alternative.

>

>

> It seems she has decided that everyone deserves a

> second chance. It's a real victory for womankind.

HRC stuck by Bill - vile.....

[*Bob*]

money, status, power

plus ?a change

[Jeremy]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> On the other hand - his ?20,000/week wage and her

> unlikelihood of bagging an alternative.

He's earning a tenth of that now. Not sure if a big club will touch him again, and he probably only has 6-8 years left of his career. So it must be love - or stupidity.

[*Bob*]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> He's earning a tenth of that now. Not sure if a

> big club will touch him again, and he probably

> only has 6-8 years left of his career. So it must

> be love - or stupidity.

I'm sure the football industry will be prepared to forgive and forget now all that nasty trial business is out of the way. Especially if there's a good deal to be had.

[Mick Mac]

Her father is wealthy apparently so its not about money for her.

Maybe she considers this a one off mistake on his part. However unlikely that may be.

[Mick Mac]

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The media seem to have made up their mind (as do

> most on here) about the facts regardless of the

> judge's verdict.

The fact is, it's not rape. To say anything else is now potentially slander or something of that sort....

[*Bob*]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Her father..

It's going to be a frosty father-and-son-in-law game of dominos down the pub of a Sunday.

[KidKruger]

So is the deal basically that because she liked a shag (like most humans) it was not rape, even though she didn't actually consent ?

[titch juicy]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So is the deal basically that because she liked a

> shag (like most humans) it was not rape, even

> though she didn't actually consent ?

we don't know if she consented or not, do we?

[Mick Mac]

Legally - for the purposes of this case - she consented. End of.