frank_spencer Posted October 17, 2016 Posted October 17, 2016 See the link above - as I understand it her pleas to be 'fucked harder' on more than one occasion, with different men and close to the night spent with Ched and his mate was deemed relevant to the case. In general though, no, it shouldn't be brought in. Still fail to see how her interactions with these other 2 blokes has any impact on the events of the night in question. I'm not an expert on the legality of these matters but it doesn't right with me. Quote
Tonge moor green jacket Posted October 17, 2016 Posted October 17, 2016 Still fail to see how her interactions with these other 2 blokes has any impact on the events of the night in question. I'm not an expert on the legality of these matters but it doesn't right with me. As detailed on that link, it gives credence to his exertion that he believed she'd consented. Better explained on there obviously. Quote
frank_spencer Posted October 17, 2016 Posted October 17, 2016 (edited) As detailed on that link, it gives credence to his exertion that he believed she'd consented. Better explained on there obviously.I know the legal Eagles involved in the case will know better than me but I don't like a womans sexual history being brought in to the case.If anything this case should highlight to men and wimmin that shagging someone so drunk is a massive grey area and one probably best avoidedfor both parties. Edited October 17, 2016 by frank_spencer Quote
Tonge moor green jacket Posted October 17, 2016 Posted October 17, 2016 I know the legal Eagles involved in the case will know better than me but I don't like a womans sexual history being brought in to the case. If anything this case should highlight to men and wimmin that shagging someone so drunk is a massive grey area and one probably best avoidedfor both parties. I'd agree generally and was very surprised. Given the explanation however it seems justified. Quite agree about shagging someone so pissed. Each to their own like but getting your mate's sloppy seconds has never appealed. Quote
birch-chorley Posted October 17, 2016 Posted October 17, 2016 I know the legal Eagles involved in the case will know better than me but I don't like a womans sexual history being brought in to the case. If anything this case should highlight to men and wimmin that shagging someone so drunk is a massive grey area and one probably best avoidedfor both parties. If she's on all 4's shouting fuck me harder many would consider that consent enough, that was Evans defence The two other fellas would came forward as also shagging her that month described her asking to be shagged in the exact same style thus giving weight to Evans side of events She just couldn't remember anything A lot of people get so drunk they don't remember anything but it doesn't mean that they were unconscious or incapacitated at the time My mate drove home after a night out pissed out of his head, woke up in the morning not knowing how he got back home until his Mrs told him she watched him park up and get out of the car. Clearly a terrible thing to do but goes to show that not being able to remember doesn't always mean your unconscious on the floor Quote
HomerJay Posted October 17, 2016 Posted October 17, 2016 I have a question. Did ched evans rape this girl or not? Quote
Casino Posted October 17, 2016 Posted October 17, 2016 I have a question. Did ched evans rape this girl or not? he may have done but a jury couldnt be convinced beyond reasonable doubt Quote
frank_spencer Posted October 17, 2016 Posted October 17, 2016 (edited) he may have done but a jury couldnt be convinced beyond reasonable doubtAnd if she was as drunk as we were lead to belive only Ched Evans will really know. Edited October 17, 2016 by frank_spencer Quote
Whites man Posted October 17, 2016 Posted October 17, 2016 And if she was as drunk as we were lead to belive only Ched Evans will really know. If she was that drunk she could not consent so it was rape. Quote
Tonge moor green jacket Posted October 18, 2016 Posted October 18, 2016 If she was that drunk she could not consent so it was rape. That's what I thought until reading the article. Quote
gonzo Posted October 18, 2016 Posted October 18, 2016 My wife is pretty much comatose every time we have a fondle nowadays. She just says pull my nightie down when your finished and don't forget to let the dog out for a piss. Quote
tomski Posted October 18, 2016 Posted October 18, 2016 My wife is pretty much comatose every time we have a fondle nowadays. She just says pull my nightie down when your finished and don't forget to let the dog out for a piss. The love dog? Its you isn't it? Quote
gonzo Posted October 18, 2016 Posted October 18, 2016 The love dog? Its you isn't it? Thanks for listening. Quote
little whitt Posted October 18, 2016 Posted October 18, 2016 If she was that drunk she could not consent so it was rape. if was that drunk she would never be saying FUCK ME HARDER on all fours Quote
kent_white Posted October 18, 2016 Posted October 18, 2016 if was that drunk she would never be saying FUCK ME HARDER on all fours I've said loads of things when I've been too pissed to consent to anything that I can't remember. Admittedly not 'fuck me harder' while on all fours :-) I'm more of a missionary man! Quote
jayjayoghani Posted October 19, 2016 Posted October 19, 2016 So Kent likes being taken missionary... Quote
kent_white Posted October 19, 2016 Posted October 19, 2016 So Kent likes being taken missionary... That's was the joke see :-) Quote
HR Posted October 19, 2016 Posted October 19, 2016 If she was that drunk she could not consent so it was rape. So is being drunk a mitigating or aggravating factor in the eyes of the law or does it depend whether or not you are the victim or the perpetrator? Quote
Whites man Posted October 19, 2016 Posted October 19, 2016 So is being drunk a mitigating or aggravating factor in the eyes of the law or does it depend whether or not you are the victim or the perpetrator? Do victims need mitigating or aggravating factors? Quote
madthatter Posted October 19, 2016 Posted October 19, 2016 So is being drunk a mitigating or aggravating factor in the eyes of the law or does it depend whether or not you are the victim or the perpetrator? Going off the article I would say that it would depend on just how drunk you were. Which is why I'm struggling to get my head around it all - As others have said we can all say and do things when pissed that we may not even remember but probably instigated/went along with at the time. Not the best comparison but look what happens to drunk drivers or people who drink on duty etc. They are held accountable, even though pissed, as they got themselves in that state. Where rape is concerned is such a difficult one to call in a case like this. I just don't see how a jury could ever determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a person couldn't consent if they were conscious and seemingly aware at the time. And whilst I'm not sticking up for folk that take advantage, you could forgive someone for going that bit farther, especially if they were kegged themselves and the girl was seemingly 'up for it'. It would seem here though that Ched did no such thing the sleazy, spit roasting. not guilty raper! Quote
MickyD Posted October 25, 2016 Posted October 25, 2016 How much of a difference, in a rape case, is "Drunk" having had a few drinks, and "Drunk and incapable" having had to be carried into a hotel? Quote
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.