Ched Evans - Page 5

Gordon Booth · 10-01-2015, 15:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by MargaretR

In the past wives were the husband's property and were expected to submit to a man's 'conjugal rights' to intercourse whether she wanted it or not.

Ahh,MargaretR, they weren't called 'The Good Old Days' for nothing. Unfortunately a bit before my time(and yours?)

Also, equal pay for equal work is an innovation still struggling to be acknowledged.

Got to agree, I've always thought women miners, foundry workers and dustbin emptier's are underpaid!

Too many men, of all ages, still cling to the notion that men are more worthy/valuable to society.
Well, you would say that, wouldn't you? And I'd never accuse you of bias.

That is why some men are condemning this man's action and some are condoning (finding excuses) for it.
I don't think any man on this thread has condoned the action of either of these men, whether it was consensual or not but then neither can you condone the womans actions, consensual or not.
What has been questioned is the findings of the court and the jury and whether a man, having served the sentence he was given, should be allowed to restart doing the only thing he is any good at.
I would certainly question the mob rule which influences the clubs decision by threatening its staff and their daughters !

.

.

lettie · 10-01-2015, 16:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Accyexplorer

No longer are we equal befote the law,If I get drunk and beat someones head in, I am guilty of assault........and being drunk would be no defence in court....just saying.

How ridiculous... If you get drunk and beat someone's head in you will be guilty of assault. If she'd have got drunk and beaten someone's head in she would also be guilty of assault........ But, she didn't, did she?

If you got drunk and were sexually assaulted/raped, the law would therefore defend you too......But, you didn't, did you.

Gordon Booth · 10-01-2015, 16:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by lettie

If you got drunk and were sexually assaulted/raped, the law would therefore defend you too

Believe me, lettie, a few people have thought of it. Although I think castration was more what they had in mind!

Barrie Yates · 10-01-2015, 17:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon Booth

Believe me, lettie, a few people have thought of it. Although I think castration was more what they had in mind!

With the wrong ends of two half bricks?

Gordon Booth · 10-01-2015, 17:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barrie Yates

With the wrong ends of two half bricks?

No half measures,Barrie. Two full bricks.

Got to be cruel to be kind!

Redraine · 10-01-2015, 17:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucysgirl

Circa 2006 Parliament debated the subject of rape and came to the conclusion that a drunken female cannot consent to sexual intercourse.

Not according to the judge in the case in his address to the jury:-
" "A woman clearly does not have the capacity to make a choice if she is completely unconscious through the effects of drink and drugs, but there are various stages of consciousness, from being wide awake to dim awareness of reality. In a state of dim and drunken awareness you may, or may not, be in a condition to make choices. So you will need to consider the evidence of the complainant's state and decide these two questions: was she in a condition in which she was capable of making any choice one way or another? If you are sure that she was not, then she did not consent. If, on the other hand, you conclude that she chose to agree to sexual intercourse, or may have done, then you must find the defendants not guilty."
The CCTV video shows the girl entering the hotel with McDonald then returning alone to pick up from the floor outside the entrance her pizza carton, then walking steadily back inside alone, and carrying the carton showing no signs of unsteadiness, let alone drunkenness.

Neil · 10-01-2015, 18:27

The account I read about court says she asked him to errrm perform a sexual act on her. When she was questioned about what the words meant she explained. That alone sounded like consent to me.
If a woman asked you to pop down there and do an impression of a dog drinking water I think anyone would take that as consent.

Gordon Booth · 10-01-2015, 19:33

Both readily admitted they had sex with her but both, surprisingly, admitted(how shall I put it?) they were unable to complete the act. So there was no forensic evidence of sex, only their open admissions. Evans even commented she complained about his poor performance.
Their evidence reads more like two stupid, naive, somewhat drunken idiots behaving badly than two rapists.
And of course one of them wasn't a rapist- he was found innocent! But the other was??

Lucysgirl · 10-01-2015, 23:41

The whole sordid affair wasn't supposed to be under public scrutiny and if that was a normal weekend it wouldn't have occurred. It just so happened that it was a May Bank holiday and a group of footballers were meeting up in Wales for a social break.

The female knew they were in town because they'd been in the club where she worked. She wasn't too drunk in the pizza bar to repulse one male who made advances towards her but managed to turn and stumble near the footballer, which according to the prosecution expert proved she was drunk.

I think the female had an agenda, just as the footballers had an agenda.

Lucysgirl · 10-01-2015, 23:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon Booth

Both readily admitted they had sex with her but both, surprisingly, admitted(how shall I put it?) they were unable to complete the act. So there was no forensic evidence of sex, only their open admissions. Evans even commented she complained about his poor performance.
Their evidence reads more like two stupid, naive, somewhat drunken idiots behaving badly than two rapists.
And of course one of them wasn't a rapist- he was found innocent! But the other was??

Brains aren't fully developed until we're about 25 - 26 years old. It's recognised that a female's brain is more advanced in maturity than a male's brain by at least two years - which would mean the 19 year old female had a brain of a 21+ yr old male. A male might be 23 years old but with so much chemical activity including testosterone circulating in his brain he's at a disadvantage against the thought power of a 23 year old female's brain by at least two years.

Barrie Yates · 11-01-2015, 08:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon Booth

No half measures,Barrie. Two full bricks.

Got to be cruel to be kind!

The wrong end of half a brick is rough & jagged

Lucysgirl · 11-01-2015, 21:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

Read post 352 in Stanley section on Impossible Headlines thread, This is something i was completely unaware of, and if correct, puts a different light on this issue to me.

It's my understanding that the Police said they couldn't do anything about it because it had been deleted. However, just because a person deletes a tweet on their phone there is still a record of everything on most mobile phones (similarly as on a computer's hard drive even tho the item has been deleted). I'm sure the Police know that this is how undesirables get information from discarded mobile phones which have been sent for disposal.
==
"There is also the question of evidence which was unavailable at the trial. I.e., postings on Twitter which were deleted by the claimant but which are still showing on servers in the USA
These suggest that she was set on a course of entrapment by "landing a big one this time" and " and "going to get 2 pink Minis"."

Lucysgirl · 11-01-2015, 21:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redraine

Not according to the judge in the case in his address to the jury:-
" "A woman clearly does not have the capacity to make a choice if she is completely unconscious through the effects of drink and drugs, but there are various stages of consciousness, from being wide awake to dim awareness of reality. In a state of dim and drunken awareness you may, or may not, be in a condition to make choices. So you will need to consider the evidence of the complainant's state and decide these two questions: was she in a condition in which she was capable of making any choice one way or another? If you are sure that she was not, then she did not consent. If, on the other hand, you conclude that she chose to agree to sexual intercourse, or may have done, then you must find the defendants not guilty."

The CCTV video shows the girl entering the hotel with McDonald then returning alone to pick up from the floor outside the entrance her pizza carton, then walking steadily back inside alone, and carrying the carton showing no signs of unsteadiness, let alone drunkenness.

.
Every participant during the night in question had their own Agenda.

The crux of the matter is when it comes to the court appearance of the participants. I know from an acquaintance that for her divorce case in court that she was instructed by her solicitor on her makeup, her clothes and her demeanor. In the course of my lifetime I've also been told by policemen that I wouldn't recognise witnesses from first seeing them to later seeing them in the courtroom where it appeared "butter wouldn't melt in their mouths".

We make up our minds in the first few seconds of seeing a person and often it takes a darned sight longer to undo the first impressions.

Accyexplorer · 11-01-2015, 22:56

image.jpg

Gordon Booth · 12-01-2015, 17:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

If a woman asked you to pop down there and do an impression of a dog drinking water I think anyone would take that as consent.

Very graphically and clearly put, Neil but couldn't one have put it rather more delicately?

After all there are people of genteel persuasions on Accyweb!

Although, offhand, I can't think of one besides myself.