Parklife Posted October 16, 2016 Author Share Posted October 16, 2016 8 hours ago, ParisInAKilt said: Why should the girl in this case be named? I'm assuming DD believes that she's maliciously accused Evans of rape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 10 hours ago, RenfrewBlue said: Whether she's a slag or not is completely immaterial. No woman should be used in the way it appears she has been. What went on sounds pretty unsavoury, but if she was a willing participant it's not rape, even if she did regret (or forget?) it in the morning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dandydunn Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 9 hours ago, ParisInAKilt said: Why should the girl in this case be named? Not just this case,every case that turns out to be a false call. The guy is named and shamed to the public as a rapist before the trial even starts. Mud sticks,this thread has proven that and now he is not guilty,everyone knows what he was accused of,but no one knows who made the false accusations and sent him to jail. As said before,I've been on a jury for a rape case,the guy was from a small village lost a lot of his friends,his job,abused by strangers and petty much forced out of his village. Named every day in the papers,then the lassies 4 buddies come up to the stand and tell 4 different stories. We all knew on day 1 he was innocent but he had to go through 4 days of this torture. He's not guilty but still has this charge stuck to his name,she has told a pack of lies and walks away like nothing ever happened. Thats completely wrong imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larky Masher Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 2 minutes ago, dandydunn said: Not just this case,every case that turns out to be a false call. The guy is named and shamed to the public as a rapist before the trial even starts. Mud sticks,this thread has proven that and now he is not guilty,everyone knows what he was accused of,but no one knows who made the false accusations and sent him to jail. As said before,I've been on a jury for a rape case,the guy was from a small village lost a lot of his friends,his job,abused by strangers and petty much forced out of his village. Named every day in the papers,then the lassies 4 buddies come up to the stand and tell 4 different stories. We all knew on day 1 he was innocent but he had to go through 4 days of this torture. He's not guilty but still has this charge stuck to his name,she has told a pack of lies and walks away like nothing ever happened. Thats completely wrong imo. So you think that in every case where the man is cleared that the accusation is a false one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Rubble Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 3 minutes ago, Larky Masher said: So you think that in every case where the man is cleared that the accusation is a false one? That wasn't his point, Larky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larky Masher Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 Just now, Barney Rubble said: That wasn't his point, Larky. Enlighten me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Rubble Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 4 minutes ago, Larky Masher said: Enlighten me. There's a difference between the accusation and the jury's verdict. His point is that where the jury's verdict finds in favour of the accused then the accuser should be named. Which is different to implying that the accusation is false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 It must be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt, given it will often be one persons word against another, so there will be plenty cases where the accuser was raped, but the accused walks due to lack of or inconclusive evidence. Where it's a malicious or spurious claim Dandydun has a point. Although more that the accused should have the same anonymity, rather than the victim be named. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larky Masher Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 1 minute ago, Barney Rubble said: There's a difference between the accusation and the jury's verdict. His point is that where the jury's verdict finds in favour of the accused then the accuser should be named. Which is different to implying that the accusation is false. And I believe that the consensus on that is that it would significantly reduce the number victims coming forward, as for the woman in the Evans case do you think she still live in Rhyl in total anonymity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Rubble Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 2 minutes ago, Larky Masher said: And I believe that the consensus on that is that it would significantly reduce the number victims coming forward, as for the woman in the Evans case do you think she still live in Rhyl in total anonymity? The alternative would be to give both parties anonymity, which for exactly the same reason you mention, and the nature of our media, would most likely be impossible to guarantee or enforce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larky Masher Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 Just now, Barney Rubble said: The alternative would be to give both parties anonymity, which for exactly the same reason you mention, and the nature of our media, would most likely be impossible to guarantee or enforce. I don't think it needs the media for details of cases like this to get out as gossip works really well, though this has a local rather than a national impact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willie Miller's tache Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 15 hours ago, RenfrewBlue said: Can't remember the full story but didn't Evans mate text him to tell him the girl was wanting to meet.him. Surely he would have known she had been drinking? The whole thing stinks and if my daughter brought him home as her boyfriend I think I'd be looking for a hammer faster than Jim McLean at a press conference. He may not be a rapist but he has the morals of a sewer rat. Absolutely. Surprised his fiancé took him back and totally astounded by the support of his future father in law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 1 hour ago, Parklife said: I'm assuming DD believes that she's maliciously accused Evans of rape. Which isn't the case. What she said was that she couldn't remember anything about it. It was the police and the CPS that pressed the case on that basis that she wasn't in a position to give consent. The problem with the original verdict was that there were two defendants, the first one the guy she met in the street and the second one, Evans. One was acquitted and Evans was convicted but if the girl was so intoxicated that she was unable to give consent then why didn't that apply in the case of the first defendant as well? The law is that drunken consent is still consent, ie., if someone is drunk but gives consent it's consent regardless of the whether the same person wouldn't have consented had they been sober. i don't think it's been claimed by anyone in the case that when Evans had sex with the girl she was unconscious or was coerced in any way. I think we all know of - or perhaps have experienced it ourselves - people who have been drunk and have no recollection of the last few hours of an evening and have no memory of how they got home, but they got home safely somehow. Not comparing this with having group sex but at least it demonstrates how some people can function, despite being intoxicated and have no memory. A long, but very good, analysis of the case here. https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larky Masher Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 37 minutes ago, aaid said: Which isn't the case. What she said was that she couldn't remember anything about it. It was the police and the CPS that pressed the case on that basis that she wasn't in a position to give consent. The problem with the original verdict was that there were two defendants, the first one the guy she met in the street and the second one, Evans. One was acquitted and Evans was convicted but if the girl was so intoxicated that she was unable to give consent then why didn't that apply in the case of the first defendant as well? The law is that drunken consent is still consent, ie., if someone is drunk but gives consent it's consent regardless of the whether the same person wouldn't have consented had they been sober. i don't think it's been claimed by anyone in the case that when Evans had sex with the girl she was unconscious or was coerced in any way. I think we all know of - or perhaps have experienced it ourselves - people who have been drunk and have no recollection of the last few hours of an evening and have no memory of how they got home, but they got home safely somehow. Not comparing this with having group sex but at least it demonstrates how some people can function, despite being intoxicated and have no memory. A long, but very good, analysis of the case here. https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/ That's a good analysis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParisInAKilt Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 2 hours ago, dandydunn said: Not just this case,every case that turns out to be a false call. The guy is named and shamed to the public as a rapist before the trial even starts. Mud sticks,this thread has proven that and now he is not guilty,everyone knows what he was accused of,but no one knows who made the false accusations and sent him to jail. As said before,I've been on a jury for a rape case,the guy was from a small village lost a lot of his friends,his job,abused by strangers and petty much forced out of his village. Named every day in the papers,then the lassies 4 buddies come up to the stand and tell 4 different stories. We all knew on day 1 he was innocent but he had to go through 4 days of this torture. He's not guilty but still has this charge stuck to his name,she has told a pack of lies and walks away like nothing ever happened. Thats completely wrong imo. False call? Don't agree. Maybe if it was malicious as others have said and the person was charged with a crime, which isn't the case here. Also don't agree with the accused being named as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumnio Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 (edited) Ched Evans isnt a very nice chap, think thats clear to all. It isnt however a crime. He was found guilty in dubious circumstances, and lost a few years of his life as a result, if he was a normal bloke, and not a rich footballer, he would quite probably still be in jail, left to rot as a rapist, and on the sex register for life. I dont think thats quite just. The accuser shouldnt be named and shamed, that would be retribution, not justice. The media circus around this case would do untold damage to women who have actually been abused, and would obviously result in women being frightened to report incidents, that would be a horrendous side affect. However, the accused should not be named until found guilty, once someone is accused of something, simply being found not guilty will never wash away the accusations, the insults and the stigma attached. While I havent followed this case closely, I remember at the time thinking the decision was a bit dubious. The retrial is seen as opening a can of worms as her history was in question, to be frank, I dont have an issue with that. She is the only witness to the crime, surely she must be looked at, I actually dislike the fact that Ive just written that, but Im sorry, its true. Its a terrible case, and no one really knows if the verdict is right. The bigger impact it will have is on others, I just hope it doesnt have a negative impact on victims coming forward. Edited October 16, 2016 by kumnio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euan2020 Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 4 hours ago, aaid said: Which isn't the case. What she said was that she couldn't remember anything about it. It was the police and the CPS that pressed the case on that basis that she wasn't in a position to give consent. The problem with the original verdict was that there were two defendants, the first one the guy she met in the street and the second one, Evans. One was acquitted and Evans was convicted but if the girl was so intoxicated that she was unable to give consent then why didn't that apply in the case of the first defendant as well? The law is that drunken consent is still consent, ie., if someone is drunk but gives consent it's consent regardless of the whether the same person wouldn't have consented had they been sober. i don't think it's been claimed by anyone in the case that when Evans had sex with the girl she was unconscious or was coerced in any way. I think we all know of - or perhaps have experienced it ourselves - people who have been drunk and have no recollection of the last few hours of an evening and have no memory of how they got home, but they got home safely somehow. Not comparing this with having group sex but at least it demonstrates how some people can function, despite being intoxicated and have no memory. A long, but very good, analysis of the case here. https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/ reading that - girl liked her oats given language she used - seems consensual - unless she thought it was the other player at that time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveyDenoon Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 Some facts... Slags can be victims of rape Women who enjoy sex can be victims of rape Women with "colourful" or "interesting" sexual histories can be victims of rape A woman who has given consent 1000 times cannot by virtue of her past be deemed to have given consent on the 1001st A woman who enjoyed a sexual encounter or encounters in similar or even the exact same circumstances in the past cannot automatically be considered to have given consent this time around A woman who does not give consent to sexual activity is a victim of rape A woman who is so drunk as to be incapable of giving consent must be considered as not having given consent and by default is a victim of rape A woman's sexual past is of no consequence whatsoever in considering whether or not she has given consent Sexual intercourse without consent is rape Where an alleged rapist is found not guilty it does not automatically follow that the accusation was malicious So.... Evans might've been found not guilty but a huge factor in that, as it was given in evidence, was the girl's sexual past and the fact she had a "healthy" interest in sex. This defence seems remarkably flimsy however I concede the prosecution had no real firm evidence either. The truth is in most rape cases, and in this one in particular, we will never know for sure what happened that night. Perhaps even those involved will never truly know for certain. Is Evans a rapist? None of us actually know. What we do know is that Evans is a disgusting creature with the morals of a feral cat who will quite rightly be reviled for the rest of his career. Is he guilty of an offence? We will never know. But legal guilt is not required to know when someone is a completely disgusting scumbag and being on the right side of the technicalities of the law doesn't make someone a decent stand up guy. As for naming and shaming the girl? Nonsense. But I do agree that any woman who is found to have deliberately and maliciously concocted an allegation of rape should be named, shamed and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. it is just that there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that is what has happened in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Rubble Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 A genuine question and not in any way meant to be controversial or confrontational - but what exactly is the definition of a rich footballer?? And using the metric that you choose to define that, would a similarly rich lawyer/doctor/accountant come under the same media scrutiny as Chad Evans has had to endure during this entire process? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParisInAKilt Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 1 hour ago, DaveyDenoon said: Some facts... Slags can be victims of rape Women who enjoy sex can be victims of rape Women with "colourful" or "interesting" sexual histories can be victims of rape A woman who has given consent 1000 times cannot by virtue of her past be deemed to have given consent on the 1001st A woman who enjoyed a sexual encounter or encounters in similar or even the exact same circumstances in the past cannot automatically be considered to have given consent this time around A woman who does not give consent to sexual activity is a victim of rape A woman who is so drunk as to be incapable of giving consent must be considered as not having given consent and by default is a victim of rape A woman's sexual past is of no consequence whatsoever in considering whether or not she has given consent Sexual intercourse without consent is rape Where an alleged rapist is found not guilty it does not automatically follow that the accusation was malicious So.... Evans might've been found not guilty but a huge factor in that, as it was given in evidence, was the girl's sexual past and the fact she had a "healthy" interest in sex. This defence seems remarkably flimsy however I concede the prosecution had no real firm evidence either. The truth is in most rape cases, and in this one in particular, we will never know for sure what happened that night. Perhaps even those involved will never truly know for certain. Is Evans a rapist? None of us actually know. What we do know is that Evans is a disgusting creature with the morals of a feral cat who will quite rightly be reviled for the rest of his career. Is he guilty of an offence? We will never know. But legal guilt is not required to know when someone is a completely disgusting scumbag and being on the right side of the technicalities of the law doesn't make someone a decent stand up guy. As for naming and shaming the girl? Nonsense. But I do agree that any woman who is found to have deliberately and maliciously concocted an allegation of rape should be named, shamed and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. it is just that there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that is what has happened in this case. Good post. Ill be honest, I want Evans to be guilty, probably always have since reading what happened but it's hard to say with conviction that he is a rapist based on what's been said. Horrible situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Rubble Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 (edited) I don't buy this assertion that Ched Evans is a disgusting creature with the morals etc etc. She wasn't exactly the Virgin Mary, legally or otherwise, that's clear. And he wasn't Saint Augustine either. A young guy in the wrong place at the wrong time who made a bad decision that had horrenduous consequences for him with a young lady who made a bad decision that had horrenduous consequences for her. For which the legal process and the public purse has had to produce a judgement. Could have been any one of us at that age. And not one person on here knows exactly what happened. Edited October 16, 2016 by Barney Rubble still Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larky Masher Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 40 minutes ago, Barney Rubble said: I don't buy this assertion that Ched Evans is a disgusting creature with the morals etc etc. She wasn't exactly the Virgin Mary, legally or otherwise, that's clear. And he wasn't Saint Augustine either. A young guy in the wrong place at the wrong time who made a bad decision that had horrenduous consequences for him with a young lady who made a bad decision that had horrenduous consequences for her. For which the legal process and the public purse has had to produce a judgement. Could have been any one of us at that age. And not one person on here knows exactly what happened. For which Ched Evans' sugar daddy in law (to be) has produced a judgement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Rubble Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 3 minutes ago, Larky Masher said: For which Ched Evans' sugar daddy in law (to be) has produced a judgement. Larky no idea what you are talking about. Enlighten me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larky Masher Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 Just now, Barney Rubble said: Larky no idea what you are talking about. Enlighten me? It's his girlfriend's millionaire father who bankrolled both the initial defence and the appeal (including the reward offer for new information). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Rubble Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 Just now, Larky Masher said: It's his girlfriend's millionaire father who bankrolled both the initial defence and the appeal (including the reward offer for new information). So? What's your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.