Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 75 comments are related to the topic:
Ched Evans
Ched Evans
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 75
|
By:
nice to see u back annie
|
|
By:
You mean they allow women to post on here...
 I thought I was safe  |
|
By:
Good post annie, spot on.
crags, I suppose you find his fellow scouse git ex striker on talksport funny as well.Forgotten his name. |
|
By:
mitchell downie
|
|
By:
Geordie, bearded,centre forward, banned for animal cruelty when he was training horses.
|
|
By:
Mitchell's moved on, Capt.
Date: 10:00 Sat 08 Oct 2016 Team: The Mitchell Downies Tranmere 1 - 0 Wrexham Peterborough 1 - 1 Bury Bristol Rovers 1 - 0 Fleetwood Rochdale 1 - 1 Southend Scunthorpe 1 - 1 Northampton Sheff Utd 1 - 0 Walsall Mansfield 1 - 1 Notts County Blackpool 1 - 1 Cambridge Hartlepool 1 - 1 Crawley Luton 1 - 1 Crewe |
|
By:
Thanks, Capt F and kenny
 |
|
By:
ebulGery, I promise to be gentle
 |
|
By:
still a scouser canny
nice 1 annie keep dancing/posting Night ALL EVEN CRAGS  |
|
By:
Sigh
|
|
By:
Nice to hear annie
 We have women running countries, making important decisions that affect us all Yet when it comes to deciding on sex the decision is still put on the man. If a women says no, she means no, so men accept that But if a women says yes men have to decide whether she really means yes or she means no  I think women put a lot on men nowadays, too much! |
|
By:
The women got herself drunk...so what happened was her own fault in my opinion!
|
|
By:
Not according to Facts BG
The drunk people are always in the right in Facts world |
|
By:
The stupid law thinks otherwise, sadly, E.
Anyway bed, ptd. |
|
By:
Not saying women deserve to be raped, if they're drunk ( or tipsy in her case) but from all the evidence I've read of this case there was no rape.
|
|
By:
I agree Kenny women should not be raped even if they are drunk.
But when a woman consents it is hard to see where the rape comes in. A lot of people have sex after alcohol. On the red button two Sparta Prague players in trouble, one said 'women belong at the stove', another one tweeted 'to the stove' Their punishment is to train with the women's team  It is getting worse by the day for men....... |
|
By:
my smilie should have been
|
|
By:
Facts 04 Oct 16 23:24
If its proved she was too intoxiicated to give consent , then any subsequent intercourse would be classed as rape - as she didn't give permission. absolutely spot on Facts. .....the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. The jury needs to be assess whether she was capable of providing consent. But most importantly, they need to do so beyond reasonable doubt, which is normally given as 95% certainty. that means the jury needs to make it 20-1 or larger that she wasn't so drunk she could give consent. and that's why Evans should never have been convicted. the whole point about this trial is that the jury got it wrong, but you can have a retrial because juries can't make decent probabilistic estimates. yes evans is a filthy sleazebag, yes there is a chance that she was too drunk to give consent, but 95%? Not one of you on here would be betting on those odds. You'd all be laying the sh1t out of it. Bookies would be palping it. |
|
By:
and of course the verdict is only made to look more idiotic by finding Clayton McDonald not guilty.
the jury is claiming to have knowledge of the precise levels of her intoxication over a 30 minute period and that within that period the threshold for consent was crossed. |
|
By:
no, the jury decided her actions were enough to lead him to believe she was consenting.
but as evans turned up without her invite he could not reasonably have thought she was consenting as the text from his mate did not imply consent.... that is all quashed now anyway, and the new trial will show new evidence a new jury will decide |
|
By:
but as evans turned up without her invite he could not reasonably have thought she was consenting
If she says yes...what else do you want? |
|
By:
he did not claim that she said yes as far i have have seen ?
had she done so he would surely have made that claim ? i think the first jury had a difficult decision and either guilty or not guilty were possible verdicts based on full evidence at the time the new evidence may change the verdict, but a new jury may well have come to a different verdict anyway. there are folk that dont seem to want to let the case be judged on the law some folk see a drunken girl and think consent, some do not, if a man woke up after a night on the drink and found his tipsy friend had taken advantage of his state the issue of consent may be taken somewhat differently. |
|
By:
no, the jury decided her actions were enough to lead him to believe she was consenting.
but as evans turned up without her invite he could not reasonably have thought she was consenting as the text from his mate did not imply consent.... those points don't invalidate mine: they are secondary and assume the capacity to provide consent . |
|
By:
he did not claim that she said yes as far i have have seen ?
errr. yes he did. |
|
By:
thats correct dstyle
but its a defence against rape |
|
By:
only if the victim is considered capable of providing consent.
the whole point is that Evans and McDonald both claimed she verbally consented to have sex with both of them. |
|
By:
the whole point is that Evans and McDonald both claimed she verbally consented to have sex with both of them.
and I believe them, so no rape I do not think being drunk takes away our ability to make decisions or that anything happened this women did not want If the women regretted it, or in this case did not remember in the morning, that does not make it raps |
|
By:
if a man woke up after a night on the drink and found his tipsy friend
had taken advantage of his state the issue of consent may be taken somewhat differently. That would not be possible with me or indeed most men I would have to be unconscious drunk for that to happen......this women was not unconscious. The Porter heard sounds of mutual sex form the room. |
|
By:
unconscious drunk would be rape of course
|
|
By:
How any 'reasonable' person could have absolutely no doubt at all about the conviction of ched evans when the victim herself cannot remember what happened and did not complain about it in the first place beggars belief. She only went to the police about a missing handbag, not about any rape.
I would like to wait and see what happens if there is another trial but your point highlighted in bold is utter nonsense and irrelevant and if it was the case would be an open goal for date rapists. I'm not saying that is what happened in this case but to suggest that you can't comprehend why a jury would find beyond reasonable doubt because a person can't remember and didn't make the complaint themselves is utter nonsense. |
|
By:
But most importantly, they need to do so beyond reasonable doubt, which is normally given as 95% certainty.
Is it? I thought it was around 99%, with case law indicating that a jury must be 'virtually certain'. |
|
By:
Reasonable doubt isn't a defence. It's the standard of proof required for a successful prosecution.
|
|
By:
True, Rob, but usually it means the same thing doesn't it?
|
|
By:
Reasonable doubt isn't a defence Annie and the law does not state that. Beyond reasonable doubt is the balance of proof required in a criminal case for someone to be convicted.
If you think that in this particular case that there was reasonable doubt then that is fair enough. To suggest though that someone can't find beyond reasonable doubt when the victim herself cannot remember what happened and did not complain about it in the first place beggars belief is nonsense. |
|
By:
It's the standard of proof.
The balance of probability is the standard of proof in civil cases. |
|
By:
True, Rob, but usually it means the same thing doesn't it?
No. You'll be acquitted if it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty, but it's not a defence. |