To be worried about the Ched Evans threads on here

[corkysgran]

Sorry but this does seem like a witchunt to me. Many of the posters (who have signed the petition) obviously have little knowledge of the case. At one point a poster said Sports Direct would withdraw sponsorship if Evans was NOT signed and immediately others were vowing to boycott. Laughable and shows the level of thought before clicking. Online justice and the court of public opinion, not for me. As for expecting football, an industry corrupt from the very top (Sepp Blatter) and inherently sexist, to show any moral stance, get real.

The defendant still has the option to claim reasonable belief. But the chances of success are slim.

That's all I was arguing

My confusion is how you can reconcile "The defendant still has the option to claim reasonable belief" with "Initiating sexual activity with an unconscious person.... = illegal"

House, I have studied the law.

I said above we're talking at cross purposes..... are you reading what I'm writing?!

Ok, giving up now. Toodles.

The problem is, we don't know because this issue has only been tested in one case and that involved a defendant who had had some previous involvement with the complainant but nothing like the sort of involved, substantial relationship that Rootypig is imagining when arguing that previous dealings might be sufficient to rebut the presumption. All we know is that theoretically it is rebuttable. We don't know what it would take to rebut it, or if it would ever be practicable. And we're unlikely to find out - because it stands to reason that the closer to the rebuttable position a sexual encounter comes, the less likely it is to be complained about to the authorities - and vice versa.

Having read a lot more on the subject, I am now inclined to step back from my original position and concede that it is at least possible that the scenario described upthread would be found to have been entirely consensual.

Well thank heavens for that.

maggie, I'll send you my bill

What would happen if someone said to their partner:' I'd really like you to give me a blow job tomorrow morning to wake me up. Much better than my usual alarm clock!'

If they cannot consent in advance and they are unconscious when it begins, is it therefore illegal. Even if they expressly say in advance that it's what they want?

^^ this is a joke House, don't get cross, I know you still disagree.

maggie in both your recent example and your anecdote, my position is that in the unlikely event a complaint was made and pursued by the CPS, you can advance that you had a reasonable belief in consent and the jury is entirely at liberty to accept that. Whether they would or not would be a finding of fact and not, as House is arguing, law.

regards, a former student of the criminal law.

No it's not retrospective. Apparently the wording of the Statute is thought to be intended to reflect the Law Commission's proposal at the time that consent should be defined as a subsisting, free and genuine agreement, which is not necessarily automatically withdrawn just because one of the parties to it goes to sleep. This grossly offends my personal view of sexual autonomy but is nonetheless the law it seems. At least in theory anyway - as I said above, it will very probably never be tested, so we will never really "know".

Excellent

I am cross as my STBXH has just arrived. So I'm off to try very very very hard not to be cross with him. Sadly, I have no scotch.

I think I will have a Scotch too. I haven't got any of the work done I sat down to do this evening!