Also some sex offenders have committed very minor offences, perhaps looking at a few inappropriate images on a computer,

hardly makes them a danger to society

How do you arrive at that conclusion EBUL?
You seem to forget that children suffered in the making of these 'inappropriate images' , as you put it.
If perverts didn't go looking for these types of pictures there would be no need for them.

Actually children are slightly different , perhaps that was a poor example, but RAPE is not as bad

does not life punishment

I had an inappropriate image taken of me as a child(10) and placed on notice board

Perhaps it did damage me,I felt it was an intrusion, I will backtrack on children, sorry...not women in general though

neither was this rape imo

That's a matter of opinion ebul. Many countries have more severe punishments for rape :

France - 15 years
Holland - 15 years
Russia - upto 15 years along with a ban on certain profession and occupations for 20 years
China - capital punishment. The execution rate in china is very high
Israel - upto 16 years
Afghanistan - capital punishment, shot in the head within 4 days
UAE - capital punishment
Dubai - hanged
Egypt - hanged
Iran - capital punishment
Saudi Arabia - stoned to death

No, the jury decided she was incapable of giving consent

Adult women are far less harmed by rape than you would ever believe....although it depends also
on the violence used

I have known rape victims

If that's in reply to me I wasn't commenting on what the jury decided. I was commenting on the fact that the jury didn't believe his evidence and that his position was that he was given informed consent by her by saying yes to intercourse.

The prosecution presented the evidence they had to the jury and the jury found him guilty based on that evidence so I don't understand how you can say there was no evidence

Did the jury not believe his evidence? The jury effectively found that whether she said yes to him or not was irrelevant. She didn't have capacity even if she said yes. All of that was based on evidence of drink already consumed at that point and of those who saw the state she was in. It doesn't necessarily mean that the jury didn't believe his evidence. Some of them might have believed it but still thought she wasn't in a position to consent.

He has never had a full appeal. He has had 2 leave to appeal applications refused. You have to show a good reason in these applications and if you do you get a full hearing. He hasn't convinced 2 courts that there is even enough wrong with the verdict to warrant a rehearing of the evidence. This is why, in the absence of some new evidence which i don't think he has, I can't see his CCRC application being successful.

what evidence?

This is a political verdict, his appeal applications are refused so he cannot get justice, you say his CCRC application
will be rejected...this man is being denied justice

Worse still he wont be allowed to leave the country so his whole career has been destroyed

On no evidence..

How can anyone know whether this woman gave consent or not..it is physically impossible...she does not even know herself?
there was no case let alone a conviction.

But there is a lot more hanging on this case. .Women are demanding their word must be taken at all times in rape cases...no other
evidence is needed..in this case we do not even have the woman's word
Men are incredibly stupid if we allow this


What are women's weapon....SEX..that is all, combined with divide and rule. Women have gained control of the media and are brainwashing
men...this is women's new weapon. Modern men have not the faintest idea what woman are really like do they? they are putty in women's hands
As I have said they are going to make their own life worse.

Actually men and women can get on together, on an equal basis, we used to in the 60/70's

Feminists are the problem, they want men out of the way so they can have a crack at women themselves, their motive.

Men, at some sacrifice, need to try and reduce the widespread display of sex in our society. I would advise that.
Go back to the traditional values of the 1950's and before. Me work, women at home bringing up kids,etc.
That way men get a better life, men will have to do this one day anyway, evolution will demand it. So start whenever.

Did the jury not believe his evidence? The jury effectively found that whether she said yes to him or not was irrelevant. She didn't have capacity even if she said yes. All of that was based on evidence of drink already consumed at that point and of those who saw the state she was in. It doesn't necessarily mean that the jury didn't believe his evidence. Some of them might have believed it but still thought she wasn't in a position to consent.

There's a difference between consent and saying 'yes'. Evans position was that she consented. Presumably when he was asked by his lawyer when giving evidence "did she consent?" he and his lawyer were aware what consent means and his lawyer wasn't just asking "did she say yes?". As a result his position was not 'she said yes so I thinks that's a defence no matter what'. It was that she had given informed consent as per the law as at stood at the time, and is, that someone being intoxicated, mentally disabled or not having the capacity to consent etc is incapable of consenting. This wasn't some landmark case which defined what consent is. It's established that a person saying yes when not having the capacity to consent is not consenting.

Therefore if his position was that she consented and they decided she was incapable of consent then they didn't believe his evidence.

yes, and the judge when passing sentence said ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

just agreeing with your "Therefore if his position was that she consented and they decided she was incapable of consent then they didn't believe his evidence."

Ebul - you're angry about it yet seem to only have half the story and guess the rest - while castigating people for errrrr, guessing half the story. As has been said this isn't some landmark case, it's pretty clear and Evans has been dealt with (under law) as others have - the only difference is it's done in the public eye. The job issue is obviously completely different from the court case and appeal - would a bank/shop/office manager or suchlike convicted of rape in such circumstances generally walk straight back into their old job? Somebody will give him a job at some point (yes I'm guessing!) and i woudn't be surprised if he'll do something similar not too far down the road. Oh and time to dig out 'The 2 Ronnies - The worm has turned' for you, Mr Grey, methinks......

The woman was tested the morning after and had tiny levels of alcohol in her system. This was evidence in the case and Evans still convicted.

Therefore there must be lots of unconvicted rapists walking the streets of the UK imo.

The problem here is the jury and judges cannot believe women behave like this woman, so they assume it must be rape.
But I know they do, I have had experience of this. I did not take part myself though. The offer was there she was willing.

If men think that just believing women all the time in rape cases...which is what women want
They are fools to themselves.

How does this nonsense fit in with the extremely low rate of convictions for rape compared with other offences?

Funny how some people are able to claim the innocence of a convicted rapist when they do not have, or know, all the evidence.

I'm at a loss how Ched Evans was found guilty, whatever happened to "beyond reasonable doubt"?

He incriminated himself by admitting he had sex with her as she supposedly couldn't remember. There was no semen from either man. Also she can't be prosecuted for false claims of rape as the police made the accusations not her as she conveniently "couldn't remember".

Her tweeting about "winning big" and the pink Mini Copper and holiday she was going to buy by selling her story to a newspaper hardly fits the profile of a shattered rape victim.

She claimed to have had her drink spiked but the toxicology report only found cocaine and marijuana in her system. She said she drank two glasses of wine and four vodkas which is hardly enough for memory loss. She was also observed on CCTV looking perfectly capable of walking when she entered the hotel.

Apparently she made a similar claim about two rugby players which wasn't brought to court.

I would guess that they both had a shot on her and it was pretty lame that's why they finished without completion. The day after she probably felt humiliated by the whole experience and decided to go further with it.

Probably because what you have read and posted above looks like it has come straight from the 'Ched Evans is innocent' website.

Reasonable doubt?

She's based her all argument on she couldn't remember.

The fact the toxicology report only found cocaine and marijuana in her system and nothing like rohpynol, etc.
She was seen walking perfectly able on CCTV at the hotel.
She claims to have only drank four vodkas and two glasses of wine, hardly enough to cause memory loss and incapcitate decsion making.
She had a tiny amount of alcohol in her system when tested that same day.

So if it wasn't a drug or excessive amounts of alcohol that caused her to have memory loss what was it?

If that's not reasonable doubt then what is?

The expert called by the defence calculated that the complainant's likely blood-alcohol level at about 4am would have approximated to something like 2½ times the legal driving limit.