Who said he took advantage?

Evans should have had the common sense -and decency, to walk away. He didn't,


   He's a footballer. There're plenty more like him. And, as others have said on Chitchat, if he and his mate had packaged her off in a taxicab when they were done with her, this would have gone no further. I suspect that's what happens most days of the week in hotel rooms belonging to Premier League footballers. And most of the time it's very much consensual, even if the girls may sometimes regret what happened a few hours later.

In all honesty, I have no sympathy for somebody who gets themselves into a situation like that. She got drunk and things perhaps got a little more, erm, jiggy than she liked the morning after. But had she had any decency herself, she wouldn't have allowed herself to get into that position in the first place. All the evidence (both from video and eye witnesses) is that she was going willingly to a hotel room with a guy she had only met that night. She first saw him and Evans at the nightclub, and quite probably thought she would get one with the other. (Evans had only been separated from his mate in the first place because he had to go off to bail another of their friends from jail!)

Sordid business that doesn't reflect well on anyone. But the woman almost always has a choice as to whether she wishes to participate or not. Don't get yourself stupidly drunk in public, and don't go off to hotel rooms with creeps you've just picked up that evening. And then nothing like this is ever likely to happen to you..

Evans should have had the common sense -and decency, to walk away. He didn't, he took advantage - and paid the price for his indiscretion.

2.5 years behind bars of a 5-year sentence plus loss of his livelihood is a heck of a price to pay!

Half the Brits on stag weekends to Prague and Riga or holidaying in Ibiza or Faliraki would be "not innocent" of the same indiscretion.

the retrial will be decided by the composition of the jury.

the central issue, as all the comments around this case confirm, is how feasible the jury members consider it is that a girl in the middle of intercourse with one footballer would readily consent to a second footballer, who has just entered the room, joining in.

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

quite simply, if evans were tried by a jury of his true peers, i.e. socially and sexually active young men and women, there is no way he would be convicted.

Wont be big case if anything , in and out and interview to clear his name publicly on TV then back to football and gets slaughtered by away support every other week for a while.

I bet you when this has run it's course and the Sun comes calling with an open cheque book she'll suddenly start getting flashbacks.

"she was obviously intoxicated enough for there to be a potential issue. Evans should have had the common sense -and decency, to walk away. He didn't, he took advantage - and paid the price for his indiscretion. "

People like Facts make me worry about the kind of people who get onto juries.  The law and the evidence is of no concern to Facts.  All that matters is whether Evans broke his own sanctimonious code of conduct.

charlie Sheen the man when he was doing it

hope they dont have shrewd dude on the jury this time round .....

TheChaser  • April 21, 2016 8:06 PM BST
Booze fueled orgies are common

Not common enough....I have never found one


Rape means sex without consent, she consented there is no rape.

I would not accept any other definition of rape myself.


When we are drunk we do not act out of character, we just don't put much thought into what we are doing, we act out of impulse.

We may have regrets later, but it is our own fault for getting drunk.

Ebul

This is the legal position:

A 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).

Neither if they are both capable of consenting.

McDonald and Evans were both charged with rape. Either both were guilty or neither. The only issue was the state of drunkenness of the

defendant. There could not be two different verdicts. She was either too drunk to give consent or she was not. That is all there is to it.

I do not believe the defendant was raped, NOT IN MY OPINION.

If this law is used it must apply equally to both men or to neither

I don't believe we can just opt in and out when we choose

When Evans arrived the Porter did his job and listened outside the room he heard nothing to concern him, just sexual intercourse taking place.

If this law is used it must apply equally to both men or to neither

I don't believe we can just opt in and out when we choose



Ebul, I think the point was that the other guy had been with her for considerably longer at that point, and they'd also had conversations earlier in the evening that led him to believe that she wanted sex with him. All of those things resulted in 'pre-consent' being assumed in his case, and he was deemed not guilty.

Evans, on the other hand, was supposed to have appeared from nowhere, and couldn't be said to have receieved pre-consent. In his case, therefore, she needed to be sufficiently aware of what she was doing at the time to consent to sex with him, and the court went with the idea that she wasn't. That, as I understand it, is the difference between them. But I admit it seems a bit of a cop-out, and it's very noticeable from reading the various cases (Bree, Dougal etc.) that the law is far from clear-cut here, and the various judges have different opinions on the matter.

I also find it difficult, from the eye-witness reports I've read, to see how anyone could argue that she was definitely incapable of giving consent. In other cases, one of the girls was virtually unconscious, while another could barely speak, and had to be dragged into the hotel, and then spent half an hour throwing up into the toilet before the guy threw her onto the bed and had sex with her - and even then the judge was a little ambivalent as to whether or not she had been in a position to give consent!

Ched's bird, though, was arguing with people in a shop, remonstrating with a cabbie before getting out briefly to chuck a pizza box in the bin, texting coherent messages to her friend, and apparently happily walking around in the hotel without any needing even a hint of any assistance. And the suspicious porter heard what he believed to be numerous cries of ecstasy from her, so she hardly seems to have been unconscious during the sex itself. All things considered, I don't see how anyone can say she was definitely so far gone that she couldn't have given consent - and under those circumstances, he should never have been convicted.

The problem with this..this is not what the law says, it only speaks of capacity to give consent...

Evans was convicted because it was believed she could not give pre consent because of her alcohol consumption

so the same must apply to McDonald surely?


Also this is putting everything on to the man. What the law is saying, is that if a woman gets drunk she will sleep with any man.

So a man now to check whether the women really wants to have sex with him or it is just the drink talking?

My opinion is perhaps the woman should take responsibility themselves, and not put it all on men.


I believe both these men took advantage of her. But I do not consider that rape myself, I prefer the old law, a women just has

to give consent...JUST MY OWN OPINION.

You are extremely fair annie....but you are right

Not many women would admit that.

They like the power this law gives them over men. It keeps men off balance.

McDonald and Evans were sexual predators, Evans worse then McDonald he picked up his leavings, McDonald was the hook.

This is what used to be called seduction using alcohol(although she did this to herself), but it is not rape.

The problem with this..this is not what the law says, it only speaks of capacity to give consent...

Evans was convicted because it was believed she could not give pre consent because of her alcohol consumption

so the same must apply to McDonald surely?

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.

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.