Ched Evans verdict

Wee pet. Life was ruined! Hung up to dry, literally!

He was a crap footballer, and by all accounts crap at sex.

Gh "Lorelei76, if people had suggested that you were untrustworthy then it would be relevant"

why? if the place is burgled, you want people looking at evidence, not how trustworthy I am or not.

Similarly, whether a rape victim has sex before or after, when, or how traumatised they are does not change the legal definition of rape or the issue of whether or not consent was given, or if the accused has reason to believe consent was given.

Your observations seem rooted in value judgements. Matters brought before a court of law should be assessed according to evidence.

Chicchocporridge... Can't agree there. It sets up the lives of many innocent men to be ruined. Any woman who regrets sex with a guy or for whatever reason is just plain vindictive (and yes they are out there) could claim rape and what you seem to be arguing is that the benefit of the doubt should go to her especially if she's had a few drinks.

But that's entirely in the hands of the bloke. Don't have sex with women unless you're certain. It's easy, I've done it all my life.

At the moment, how many women's lives are blighted by men raping them? Do you think that that is more, or less than the number of vindictive women who would go through a rape trial to get back at a man for whatever reason?

As I just said elsewhere, I would happily take my chances proving that my opinion is reasonably valid based on the evidence I have seen, in court.

But as far as I remember, personal opinion isn't defamatory anyway.

a dangerous game for you to be playing as you are setting yourself up to be sued for defamation

I see no defamation here, just a discussion about things which have been freely reported in the press, and expressions of surprise that despite strong suspicions about the veracity of the new witnesses certain salient information appears to have been withheld from the jury. Also dismay about the effect that the return to slut shaming women who report rape will have in the future.

CE admitted he did not seek consent from the complainant in this case.
He did break into a dark room and stick his penis into an intoxicated woman he had never spoken to.
He did allow the activities to be viewed and filmed without her knowledge and consent.
His girlfriend did contact and attempt to influence a key witness.
The new witnesses did know the 'magic words' required by the defence as they had been reported prior to their statements being given.
They were offered money to testify.
They did both change their statements several times

"I'm not a rape apologist" says a rape apologist. How novel.

Chicchocporridge... Can't agree there. It sets up the lives of many innocent men to be ruined. Any woman who regrets sex with a guy or for whatever reason is just plain vindictive (and yes they are out there) could claim rape and what you seem to be arguing is that the benefit of the doubt should go to her especially if she's had a few drinks.

The guy can have his life ruined and her name never even made public even if he is proven as falsely accused (i question whether this is ok too).

Gh05, women are not all the same. They may behave differently to each other. How your ex-gf behaved after being raped will be different to how another woman behaves. It makes no difference to whether or not they were raped.

Do you know what gh? On the very day I got raped I went out to some bars in the evening afterwards. It had happened prior to work in the morning. i went to work. It was my leaving do from work. I wanted to block it out and get very very drunk. I knew I couldn't report it and I didn't want to deal with it in my head. It may have looked to the casual observer that I was "partying with my mates". So you don't know shit.

Lorelei76, if people had suggested that you were untrustworthy then it would be relevant. In burglary cases the insurers would be doing a damn good job in making sure that the facts were correct

What do insurers have to do with it? This is the law, not what terms and conditions you've agreed with your insurance company?

GH An honest question. Do you think that sex workers can be raped?

OlennadWimple what bit of a man being cleared of rape is difficult to understand? It is completely unacceptable for people onan internet forum to be calling him a rapist today.

This makes me, yet again, want the idea that it's not rape if he reasonably believed he had consent to be changed. It means that the only one who really has any power, is the rapist. Why is his belief held in higher esteem than the woman's?

In this case, she didn't even know. I think, that without positive evidence of consent, that it's rape. If you're drunk, and you're thinking about putting your penis in someone who's drunk, you should make sure you're damn sure she consents, and err on the side of caution.

I think thats entirely realistic, because I have been very drunk, and never inserted any part of myself in someone else who wasn't happy for it to be there, both at the time, and the morning after.

I have been very drunk, and had parts of other people inserted in me, which I was very happy about, both at the time, and generally the morning after (albeit sometimes with a bit of a face-palm).

If I punch someone in the face, even if we're both drunk, it's assault, unless I can prove, and they agree that it was a mutually enthusiastic fight, and even if it started mutually enthusiastically, if it turns out that they was too drunk, or that I hurt them, I can still, quite rightly be prosecuted. The law about assaulting someone with a penis should be the same.

Gh05 - someone's "previous character" and sexual preferences are irrelevant in determining whether they had given consent to have sex on that occasion with that person.

I could go in for regular gang-bangs, but that still gives me the right to say no to having sex with a particular individual. And if I am incapacitated (through, drink, drugs, tiredness, whatever), I am unable to give consent, and still the fact that I enjoy gang-bangs is irrelevant whether a particular individual can stick their penis in me.

What bit of this is difficult to understand?

Gh 'a dangerous game for you to be playing as you are setting yourself up to be sued for defamation.'

Sue me! Go on you know you want to, go on, go on, go on.

Fuckwit! Intellect of a stem cell.

Heh, the privilege of one who has never even had to consider being a victim of rape.

Keep posting, although I think you'll continue outing yourself as an idiot or a rapist,so be warned that you'll not get an easy experience either way.

Fair enough Andrew. I'm sorry I'm a bit sensitive about this.

Andrew

It's well known is it not that an alleged rapist will always get a woman barrister/solicitor to defend him, as it suggests that a woman will defend this person. That's a given in courts. Another given is having a disproportionate ratio of men to women, with women being the majority.

"proven not guilty"
Another demonstration of poor reading comprehension.
He has been not proven guilty. You got your words in the wrong order and it makes a big difference to the meaning.

Ps, I am not telling you to fuck off because I am unintelligent, I'm saying it because you are. Hth.

Charlieserra...another genius who can do nothing but swear... :/ well done.

My sole point on this is that there hasn't been a great deal of rational on the threads i've read but calling a man who is proven not guilty a rapist is 1) not right 2) a dangerous game for you to be playing as you are setting yourself up to be sued for defamation.

If you think that my points above make me deserving of being called every name under the sun then that days far more about you than it does about me.

Gh "I don't understand the issue of looling into sexual history..surely it is pretty relevant in determing the character of the person, their sexual practices, looking for commonalities etc"

if I was burgled, would you seek character references about me when the burglar's case was being heard?

can you accept that a woman might have sex with you one night, then the following night not to wish to have sex with someone else?

Re traumatised rape victim - do you think they all hide under the sofa for six months? Can you not imagine that it might be good to go out with your friends after undergoing something awful?

Also, how are you defining rape? Whether that person is or isn't traumatised doesn't change the legal definition of rape.

Oh and fuck off with your "that doesn't sound like a traumatised rape victim to me"
You have no clue.

You want ^logical, rational and intelligent'?

The idiot convicted himself in the original case based on his own testimony
This is a fact. Read the case transcript.
He has now changed his story and attempted to slander the victim based on her sexual history.
He was not convicted based on her being unconscious, just too drunk to consent
So some random man jumps on her knowing she is pissed out of her brains without asking, she allegedly says "fuck me harder" and then he buggers off down the fire escape.
She was still too drunk to be able to consent, even if she lapdanced on him while wearing nipple tassels.

And you think we're the unintelligent ones.