Ched Evans wins appeal

Only today I was speaking to my ex and he was congratulating me on picking leicester and spurs for the title, and he could not believe it either, even though he knows as well as anyone about my gambling.

Fook off

Well that  proves my point, crags, you are not a REAL MAN.

REAL MEN do not descend into obscenity when they have lost an argument

Just remind me when I lost this argument? You attention seeking weirdo.

Theres a bit of irony in that post crags.

Only in your mind, akabula.

Thanks, akabula

The irony is that you, as well as burton brewers, seek attention by always coming on to any thread I am on and commenting on anything I say.  What is that but being an attention seeking weirdo?

My posts are mainly about the subject matter which I am perfectly entitled to do, yours however are those of a one trick pony endlessly repeating your stupid ideas about my gender.

Fair enough, dave x

You do seem to mention the fact that you are indeed female in a lot of your posts, mind. Can't think of many women who would do that, and you won't meet terry or me. Are you Trans? or obese, maybe?

Can't think of many women who would do that

TBH crags I can't think of many men who would act like you.

You are just a bit dim, akabula.

No more wasting of my time on this. I only commented because of the bloke like post from annie, though annie seems to think that I pick out his/her posts.

Not dim crags but I have noticed you do tend to follow Annie around just to have a dig.
Never understood that type of mentality.

Of course you pick on my posts, crags!

Although it is now just you and burton-brewers that are so stupid that you think I am still a man.

I have been honest, as I take a pride in in real life, that I won't meet posters from here because I am an old woman and I do not wish to be demeaned by comments about my appearance.  I don't see men having to be met and their looks ridiculed.

You must be a right munter!

Oh dear.

You would not say that to a man, crags.  Why do men have to judge women on their looks. 

I was lucky when I was young because I was attractive and had no problem getting men.  However, I do not mind being old, been there, done that. 

I think you have shown exactly how nasty you are by that comment, crags.

I am on here discuss issues of the day, not keep on about my gender.  I am sick of it.  Betfair have done nothing about you or burton brewers.  If it keeps on I WILL ASK FOR YOU TO BE BANNED.  I have made a point of not asking this, but I think now I have no choice.

There are always obvious obvious flaws in the posts by annie. I wouldn't ridicule her if I met her, no matter what she looked like- and I'm certain that terry wouldn't as well. So why does annie say stupid things like " I don't see men having to be met and their looks ridiculed"?

Utter tosh.

And this after you just posted ' she must be a right munter' .  You contradict yourself, crags.

And again, what 'obvious flaws' are there in my posts?  Name them or shut the **** up

I know I am probably playing into your hands replying but I just think that if I don't reply to your outrageous allegations that posters might believe you.

Crags, I am warning you, leave me alone.  I have a right to post without you hassling me.

Posting things that make sense now and then might help your cause

Such as? 

You keep saying that i don't make sense, implying that I am lying, but when questioned you cannot provide any examples.

I will not be accused of lying.

See above ^^^

The Kestrel 9% lager must be kicking in, old dear. On top of all that cheap wine

Apr 23, 2016 -- 12:33AM, annie. wrote:

And this after you just posted ' she must be a right munter' .

That's a post to someone (you) who is being evasive.

crags must be on some kind of bonus but it would have to be a big one with all this overtime he's putting in to annie.

Do you never sleep, EO?

Apr 23, 2016 -- 1:14AM, crags wrote:

That's a post to someone (you) who is being evasive.

You've certainly got something to hide, not sure if it's a **** but you're hiding something.

FFS this is embarrassing.

I usually turn in around 2am crags. I'm on call but it's rare to get a call out after then. Which is why you don't often see me posting until late morning unless there's a big fight in the middle of the night.

akabula just doesn't get it

Apr 23, 2016 -- 1:38AM, Eeternaloptimist wrote:

I usually turn in around 2am crags. I'm on call but it's rare to get a call out after then. Which is why you don't often see me posting until late morning unless there's a big fight in the middle of the night.

Respect.

Ffs Ebul you must have had it explained to you about 300 times on previous threads why legally Evans could be convicted of Rape and not McDonald. Cry

You can explain it to me until the cows come home, you won't convince me, Shrewde Dude.
I have given MY OPINION that is all, I still believe it.

The law is not always right, but if you think it is fair enough


Men have always judged Women on their looks Annie, I know it may seem unfair, but that is the way evolution has decreed.

Both men and women are trapped in this.

Ebul fair enough if that is your opinion. But when you use phrases such as "this is not what the law says" then forgive people people for presuming that you are actually talking about the law as in the system of rules present in the justice system as opposed to what you think the law should be.

When I said that, I was referring to the law, if you read my post properly

People said it was ok to have 2 verdicts because McDonald had more reason to believe she was consenting than Evans?

But the law does not say that, it only talks about whether the women was capable of consent or not.

So the only issue is her capability to give consent, which must be the same for both men.


My OWN OPINION is that was capable of giving consent, so to me it was never rape.


I think the law at the moment is wrong, because it puts everything on men.

Women should take responsibility for their own decisions, and drink and drugs don't change that.

I do not think it is a man's job to check whether she is capable of giving consent, as far as he is concerned

she says YES or NO, if the answer is yes there is no rape, if the answer is no or she cannot give an answer at all, then it is rape.

This is the law

person may lack capacity to consent it they are seriously impaired by drug or alcohol use. English law makes it clear that a person who is intoxicated may not have the capacity to consent to sexual acts, even if they are conscious. This means that while it is possible to consent when intoxicated, a person may sometimes be too drunk to give effective consent. It is impossible to draw a clear line between someone who is drunk but still able to consent, and someone who is too drunk to consent. The only way to avoid a terrible mistake is to err on the side of caution. (See R v Bree [2007] EWCA Crim 804).

The problem is this line
It is impossible to draw a clear line between someone who is drunk but still able to consent, and someone who is too drunk to consent

How on earth is a man supposed to work that out?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????...

Whatever surely it must apply be to both men, unless you think that McDonald erred on the side of caution and Evans did not.

This all very iffy?

That is why we have lawyers, juries and judges...but it still does not necessarily mean a correct verdict is reached
IN MY OPINION.

I have some sympathy with your view regarding the merits of how the law is drawn ebul but it is clear. The following sentence is key:

The only way to avoid a terrible mistake is to err on the side of caution. (See R v Bree [2007] EWCA Crim 804).

It transfers responsibility for assessing whether a woman is capable at that time of consenting to the manand saying to him if you are in doubt then behave sensibly. The difference between the two men is simple. Despite the woman clearly being very drunk the pattern of her behaviour leading up to sex was consistent with her being an active and willing participant. It is far less clear in that respect with regards to Evans.

When I said that, I was referring to the law, if you read my post properly

People said it was ok to have 2 verdicts because McDonald had more reason to believe she was consenting than Evans?

But the law does not say that, it only talks about whether the women was capable of consent or not.


This is the law

person may lack capacity to consent it they are seriously impaired by drug or alcohol use. English law makes it clear that a person who is intoxicated may not have the capacity to consent to sexual acts, even if they are conscious. This means that while it is possible to consent when intoxicated, a person may sometimes be too drunk to give effective consent. It is impossible to draw a clear line between someone who is drunk but still able to consent, and someone who is too drunk to consent. The only way to avoid a terrible mistake is to err on the side of caution. (See R v Bree [2007] EWCA Crim 804).


Ebul I did read your post properly and you are continuing to talk your usual mince as per usual.

This is the law.

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

It is blatantly clear from the Sexual Offences Act 2003 S.1(1)(c) that a jury is entitled to reach two different verdicts in the case of a rape trial involving two accused where the complainer has been held to not have consented on the basis of intoxication or any other reason if they find that one of the accused did reasonably believe that the complainer consented.

The law could not be more unambiguous that it can (in your words) ave 2 verdicts because McDonald had more reason to believe she was consenting than Evans

But this is all judgement by the man. If he gets its wrong he is done for rape. The only reason you are saying it, is because it is  less clear

with Evans as nobody knows what happened inside that room......that should not be enough to convict him of rape

People should not convicted when nobody knows exactly what happened, we are suppose to presume innocence until proved guilty, not the other way

round.


I don't agree this law anyway as I said before, it is charter for false rape claims.

But I don't see he has proved guilty by the law as it stands because of lack of evidence.

2 verdicts because McDonald had more reason to believe she was consenting than Evans


How do you know that for certain????????????????????????????????????????????????

You are making an assumption, this is not proof

If the look at the events of the evening I would say McDonald had more idea she was drunk than Evans did.

But by what she said..."don't leave me,McDonald"..then it is reasonable supposition to say she was agreeable to sex.

Nobody knows what was said when Evans arrived, and that is the problem. So nobody knows exactly whether Evans had reasonable belief

You have added a bit more to Eternals original definition have you not Shrewd.

There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.

you're talking to yourself again Jerry

So now you are back to to what you think the law should be? As I said initially

Ebul fair enough if that is your opinion. But when you use phrases such as "this is not what the law says" then forgive people people for presuming that you are actually talking about the law as in the system of rules present in the justice system as opposed to what you think the law should be.


You then said

When I said that, I was referring to the law, if you read my post properly

People said it was ok to have 2 verdicts because McDonald had more reason to believe she was consenting than Evans?

But the law does not say that, it only talks about whether the women was capable of consent or not.

You are totally wrong on this though.

Your last two posts are what you think the law should be and again that is your opinion so your are entitled to it and a persons view can not be wrong because it is an opinion.

It is a fact though that you are wrong about what the law is though as I have explained to you and to be honest given your answer going back to your opinion on the Ched Evans case and what the law should be in your opinion I would hope that that is your way of accepting that your were wrong about what the law is.

(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

But I think McDonalds and Evans both did this.

The Jury did not believe Evans did, but I disagree.

One reason is because they only know what went on outside, not inside the room, where sex took place.

What makes this even stranger is that the women cannot remember anything, so she cannot claim rape took place, she has

no idea whether she consented or not or whether she was in a state to consent or not.

The law in interpretive otherwise why do we have trials? Nobody can decide just using the letter of the law.

Plus nobody has any idea who is telling the truth or not.

I am arguing for McDonalds innocence, you argue for his guilt, fair enough

I would prefer to argue over a good old fashioned murder but it appears we get more and more of these slightly unsavoury sex cases.

But if that is all there is, I will argue them.

ps

Shrewde Dude replied one minute after my last post, I would say he was the one reading this thread not me BB.

To keep this simple, you said:

When I said that, I was referring to the law, if you read my post properly

People said it was ok to have 2 verdicts because McDonald had more reason to believe she was consenting than Evans?

But the law does not say that, it only talks about whether the women was capable of consent or not.

I said

This is the law.

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.



This is nothing to do with the specifics of the Ched Evans case or what you think the law is. You replied to me saying you were talking about what the law is and that a jury could not decide the female was not consenting but still find McDonald not Guilty and Evans guilty according to the law. I'm explaining to you that you are wrong and this is now about the 301st time this has been explained to you by numerous people on numerous threads but again when presented with this fact you suddenly switch to talking about how you disagree with the law and the decision the jury made instead of what the law is.

What makes this even stranger is that the women cannot remember anything, so she cannot claim rape took place, she has

no idea whether she consented or not or whether she was in a state to consent or not.

Are you on the wind up ebul? If you accept that she doesn't remember as the jury clearly did then isn't that a great big clue that at least in the case of Evans she wasn't in a state to consent?

So what do we go on? Well maybe the fact that he tricked his way past the porter and entered the room unannounced and uninvited and even in the best case scenario perved on a couple having sex and then in the middle asked if he could join in.

You're making the case for the prosecution with every post you make and I'm someone who has reservations about the conviction.

Are you on the wind up ebul? If you accept that she doesn't remember as the jury clearly did then isn't that a great big clue that at least in the case of Evans she wasn't in a state to consent?

What proof have you???????????????????????????????????

So what do we go on? Well maybe the fact that he tricked his way past the porter and entered the room unannounced and uninvited and even in the best case scenario perved on a couple having sex and then in the middle asked if he could join in.

What proof have you he did that?

How do you know she was not in a state to consent. She may have been happy for Evans to join in, in fact she was.
He did not rape her, he did not have to, she consented.

I think the law is wrong, if a women says yes to sex that is it, it is not the responsibility of the men to question
her ability to make the decision. Surely she has to make that.

If women can govern countries surely they don't need a man to decide they should have sex or not.

I think there is enough doubt even within the law as it stands. The women is giving not evidence. Nobody knows what went on in that room?
So they convicted Evans on guesswork.

Still if you think he was guilty, fine.
Yet again you attack me, not my arguments.

I have had sex after alcohol, I was capable of making a decision. I did not claim rape the next day.

So I don't see why women should?

I will be fair eternal

Whether she was in a state to consent must be the same for both men

but

(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

Does make Evans more vulnerable than McDonald I accept that.
But the problem is what is reasonable belief?

The trial will tell

Apr 23, 2016 -- 11:03PM, ebulGery wrote:

I have had sex after alcohol, I was capable of making a decision. I did not claim rape the next day.So I don't see why women should?

and what about the blow up ebul? Did she make a report?

in good spirit as always ebul

Sorry BG

ebul

But the problem is what is reasonable belief?

That isn't the problem ebul. The law is pretty clear:


If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.

Which was where I came in on the issue. I have grave reservations about whether that test was past.

Sometimes I wonder how guys like Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris etc. got away with it all these years with only a fraction of their accusers coming forward to tell people about what they did. Then I read Ebuls opinions in 2016 and no longer wonder why someone would be reluctant to come forward with these sort of allegations 30 or 40 years ago.

We are all entitled to our own opinions Shrewd dude.

I preferred the world 30 or 40 years ago.

It seems I did not read the law closely enough on this, but I do not consider there was any rape here since I believe in the old law.

You say your opinion of course.

I am with ET and Gery on this.

The woman could not remember what happened so surely there was reasonable doubt?

Also I don't think you can rely enough on the word of a drunken woman who had just met a man and then went back to his hotel and had sex with him  to send a man to prison for five years.  In the old days, like gery said, her past reputation would have been examined and in this case I think it should have.

Another thing, Evans would not have known this women would forget. So I do not think he did anything this woman did not agree to,

because he would have known he would be on a rape charge, so he would not have done it.

Also the woman got herself drunk, so it was her choice. I think the sex was her choice, I don't think she went back to the hotel

for a game of monopoly.

Men and women do go out at night looking for sex, and alcohol is consumed.


This law is putting everything on men and nothing on women. Women should take responsibility for their own actions.

I do not know on what grounds the conviction was quashed or what will happen at the retrial. But I think Evans has been punished enough.

He should be allowed to continue his football career here or abroad. Footballers have a shelf life and he has already lost a lot of his.

Annie

I think my position is a little more nuanced than ebul's and I'm uncomfortable with any suggestion I am (as it were ) in bed with him. I have serious reservations about the verdict based on the existing law. I don't want to drag the law back to the times when a man clubbed a woman over the head and dragged her back to his cave.

Perhaps because I've never needed to.

ebul

You're missing the wood for the trees here. This girl had no idea Evans was going to pop up. She's in bed going at it hammer and tong(ue)s with the other fella when dirty fecker swwindles his way past the night porter let's himself in and springs into the action cocck in hand with his mate and brother on the fire escape filming the whole sordid episode.

He's a fiend.

FFS!...

Just because Evans turned up does not mean she had an obligation to sleep with him. Do friends turning up at your house just

pop in bed your missus when they feel like it, I would think not.

The whole way you describe Evans is biased so your opinion is worthless, neither have you any idea what happened in that room???

Your views are worthless on this

I am sure McDonald and Evans took advantage of her, and are very poor moral animals.

But the women should admit that she made a mistake and not try pin rape claims on people, especially as she has

no idea what happened.

Well none of us do really do we , there is a lot of guesswork here.

I'm going to repeat this really slowly so you can understand it ebul:

If in your own words the girl has no idea what happened then under the law as it stands this present a very strong argument for saying that she was unable to consent to sex with Evans. It couldn't be more simple. J

Just to put some more meat on the bones of what you quaintly call a poor moral animal:

Ched Evans had been out drinking in Rhyl with another footballer, his friend Clayton McDonald. Earlier, Evans had booked and paid for a room at the Premier Inn for McDonald to stay in. Separately, the victim had herself been out drinking and at some point between 3.00 am and 4.00 am, both the footballers and the victim were in a kebab shop.

Ched Evans and Clayton McDonald had become separated. While Evans was in a taxi going to one place with his brother and a friend, the victim and McDonald talked and it was agreed that they would go together to McDonald’s hotel room. While in the taxi, MacDonald sent a text to Evans saying he had “got a bird.”

On receiving the text, Evans told the taxi to head to the hotel. While his brother and friend stayed outside, Evans went into the hotel and lied to the receptionist to get a key to the hotel room.

After letting himself in he saw McDonald having sex with the victim. This stopped when he entered the room. The two men, contradicting each other, say that the other asked if Evans could join in; and that after a “yeah” from the victim Evans performed oral sex on her before having sex with her.

While this was taking place Evans’ brother and friend were outside the hotel trying to film what had happened on their phones and the hotel receptionist was listening through the hotel door from the corridor.

Evans then left the hotel, leaving via a fire exit so that he wasn’t seen by the receptionist. McDonald left through the hotel’s main entrance and told the receptionist to “keep an eye out for the girl” because she was sick.

The girl cannot remember that does not necessarily mean that she was unable to give consent does it,

it just means she cannot remember.

How on earth do you know what happened in that room, nobody else does?????????????????????????????

When you repeat slowly, does you mean you typed it slowly???????

But ET what if the girl was lying and knew what happened, what then?

This case solely rests on the testimony of a woman with dubious morals who stood to gain financially from the conviction of the two accused and possibly from selling her story to the newspapers.  She was also a drug user with traces of cannabis and cocaine in her system.  She also told the police that she thought someone had spiked her drink,  but there were no traces in her system of it.  And if she were THAT drunk then why was there no trace of alcohol in her system when tested that same day.  I know alcohol leaves your body, but for her to be unconscious at say 6am then you would expect some alcohol remaining.  I would like to know at what time she was tested.

I agree that he is not a nice person, but a great majority of men in his position would have done the same, if she had agreed to it.  But  if he is to be judged on his morals, then the girl should be as well.  How can a man be sentenced to five years and his life ruined because of the testimony of one person of dubious character.

If she was lying it wouldn't be to get Evans convicted.
Doubt she'd have the intellince to know that saying she
couldn't remember anything would lead to any convictions.

Good point Annie.

Whatever one may think of Evans he has been punished and he should be allowed to get back to football either here or abroad.

This girl's behaviour tells me she ain't sugar and spice, all things nice and she has contributed to this.

Because of the change in the law this is now deemed RAPE, but to me it never was, nothing happened the girl did not want.

This law is putting too much on men, women have to see they also have some responsibility in these situation.

In my opinion.

Apparently she only contacted the police initially about a missing handbag.  So how did it end up in a rape allegation.

The police are looking for soft targets to up their conviction rate.

When I have the time I am going to read the whole of the trial.

That is a very good question annie??????????????????????????????????

I did not know that.

How are rich footballers who can afford excellent lawyers a "soft target to up their conviction rate"

There is an advantage in UK criminal proceedings of having money.

don't forget it needs to be around 95% and upwards to be beyond reasonable doubt.

Where are you getting this figure from?

I think any intelligent person would come to the same conclusion, that there is reasonable doubt.

Put it this way, if we still hanged rapists or we were in another country that still do, would you pull the lever?

Most peep I know who's ever done anything embarrassing when drunk claims they can't remember a thing.
tis a natural get out.

annie

But ET what if the girl was lying and knew what happened, what then?

I wasn't there during the trial but if I was lead counsel for the defence the first thing I would be going through with a fine tooth comb whilst appearing respectful of the girl in question would be that very issue. Assuming that was the case then the account would have been placed before the jury and they would have seen her reactions as well as listening to her words. In shot they were best placed to assess this and clearly concluded she wasn't. Of course they like any jury could have been mistaken.

I agree that he is not a nice person, but a great majority of men in his position would have done the same,

I can think of no man who would do the same. Seriously, who on receipt of a phone call of the nature described in court wouldn't think lucky bugger and carry on their taxi journey? Everybody. Who would redirect the taxi without an invitation? Who would lie to the night porter to gain access to the room? Who would surrepticiously let themselves in knowing what was going on? Who would creep up on a couple in the act of having sex and pounce unannounced with a request to join in?

Nobody.

What happened in the run up to the sexual act paints Evans in the worst possible light. My position is clear. I am uncomfortable with the verdict but my view of Evans is that he is no kind of man.

can't believe Evans fiancee has stuck with him

he awful man karma on its way

Dollars. If he was a bin man he'd have been down the road as soon as the accusation was made.

If chad evans and the other one had been bin men or more likely on the dole, then this case would not have come to trial.

Are you saying ET, and I might have got it wrong, that if chad evans had been a bin man his girlfriend would have told him to get lost when he was arrested and charged?

I see he's scored 3 in the last 2 games to take Chesterfield to the top of League 1

Well done Chesterfield for taking a chance with the lad after others were worried that a minority of people might be offended and stop supporting their club. The Spirites have picked up a player who may have been playing in the Prem now had it not been for that fateful night and got him I dare say for a pittance given his value and the wages he should be demanding talent wise.

Sheff Utd could do with him they're in the relegation zone and only scored once

Not so well done Chesterfield for rigging the raffle that would see a lucky fan join the club's preseason tour of Hungary!

you'll find there's another thread about that somewhere

I know there's one on the football forum. Didn't see one on here.

that could perhaps be because nobody is interested on here about a raffle at Chesterfield

I've since learned more about it too. There were questions asked about who the Surrey-based fan was, since none of the regulars had heard of him. A few sad cases who had funded their own trip to follow the Spireites in Hungary asked after him while they were there. They were informed he was too sick to travel.

Contemptuous way to treat your fans, even if only four of them are daft enough to enter your 20 quid raffle!

4 goals in 4 appearances

Above post would appear to be for my benefit only!

Or would've been if you hadn't interjected.

well why don't you bump the other thread? up I presumed this one was about Ched Evans, with him playing lower league football I thought some would be interested in his comeback.

Why would I bump the other thread? Thedodgepot gave Chesterfield props for signing Evans. I merely offered unprops to the same club for treating their fans like idiots. Some undoubtedly are!

I am glad he is back playing.

I have always believed in his innocence.

I think there may be another trial though?

Well you've got ebulgery on board, BB!

yes EG I believe there is but I read somewhere that some new evidence is going to be shown that makes his case pretty good. The last match of the season for him if he is free is against Sheff Utd, you look well if he get's cleared and relegates them on the last day. daft things like that do happen

He deserves his chance for a life,his sentence to date is sufficient for being a loathesome chap.

That is a fair view treetop