Ched Evans verdict

Yeah, he's a prize prick.

He should be educating young footballers on how not to treat women like sex objects, how not to prey on drunk women with his mates and how not to lie your way into hotel rooms with the intention of having sex with the female that lies behind the door regardless of whether they are consenting or not.

Or alternatively he could do everyone a favour and just fuck off to the far side of fuck.

Signed as well.

Can you believe CE's latest statement:

Footballer acquitted this week of raping woman says he wants to speak to young players about risks they face.

The risks that footballers face?

he has said there should be more education on issues surrounding alcohol and consent, adding: “When they are drunk, think twice about it.”

(Just looked and that appears to be consistent with the legislation, so ignore my previous post. Victims aren't usually referred to as claimants though, hence confusion.)

I don't know if you can change the wording, but it refers to the complainant as the 'claimant' which isn't really right.

I've signed anyway.

Signed.

Petition has gone live
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/169433

If anyone wants to read the legislation I have posted a link to it on the new thread I have started in feminism chat.

I find it very surprising that the prosecution didn't follow up with the appeal judges on the phrase being in the public domain.

The judges did record that they reached their decision with great hesitation, so that is consistent with the fact that they knew it was very borderline. If there had been conclusive, bomb proof evidence to support he decision (a) it would at least be mentioned and (b) I doubt they'd have recorded such hesitation.

Yes, you're probably right WWA. Despite "exceptional" being so subjective the interpretation is hard to fathom. I'm discussing without having read the actual legislation and any accompanying guidance which is a probably a bit crap.

I'm just going to start a thread to discuss the legal paper now.

Yes. And wasn't one of the phrases not even the same? It was "go harder", rather than"fuck me harder"?

So from where I am sitting, saying "she likes it hard from behind" was enough. If that's not flimsy...

That it happened at appeal level suggests it is the actual legislation that is the problem rather than application.

I think it's a mixture of the two. The appeal judges really did stretch it to its limit, given how common the phrases/positions were.

I would be very interested in that thread too, and willing to weigh in my jack of all trades opinion

venus I would be really interested in a thread about the legislation and to read the paper. I have neither legal experience or knowledge to contribute unfortunately but going to get reading.

I cannot believe it was intended to work as it has in this case and from what WWA said it's not uncommon. That it happened at appeal level suggests it is the actual legislation that is the problem rather than application. Either way its inadequate.

The policy documents and any papers produced, parliamentary discussion (if there was much) etc at the time it was drafted would be fascinating to compare with the real examples of application.

Sorry to be expressing sentjments probably posted repeatedly in MN, I haven't read all the other threads, I'm a bit behind everyone else.

YY Woman. It really was that flimsy, as are many of the other cases which have allowed this evidence, as described in the paper I read last night. I just need to swap to different device and I'll post it.

Prh47 has posted in the "in the news" thread

It was prh47's posts I think. No idea which thread.

And their reason for claiming that the judgement didn't contain info on he basis for the decision was 'it can't possibly have been that flimsy' (to paraphrase).

Except the suggestion that the summary specifically omitted the basis for the decision is simply not credible. The judges will have known the scrutiny their decision would be subject to So the reason really was that flimsy.

I've just been through the gofund thread, and I see no such post Buttercups, Was it on a different CE thread?

There is no point in a summary that doesn't make sense. I can only speak in layman's terms, but if you read a summary and think "oh, there must have been more to it, probably you had to be there", the summary hasn't done it's job.

^ not, not jot

It's jot a 'full review of evidence', but the summary does say what the reasons were for granting the appeal. It's there in black and white and it's very very clear.

The point is Buttercup they say what the reasoning was for allowing the appeal. It's possible we're talking about different summary documents here.

I read a very interesting paper last night (think it was by a legal student for an assessment) about the history of the section 41 ban on sexual history and what kind of things can be exempted and the arguments for and against. It's not particularly reassuring, especially in the light of such a high profile judgement. I may start a thread to discuss it later.

One of those posters has given me serious legal advice before (privately) and he's dismissed it at as a full review of evidence. It's a summary only - he deals with that sort of stuff every day? I think it was the gofund thread