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.

Well I got that from a legal commentary - but you could go back and read the Law Conmission's proposal from the time. I am not sure why you would want to though - the relevant point is still that the presumption is rebuttable in principle.

The case I mentioned above is www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ciccarelli.

To my mind you were presenting a finding of fact as a point of law.

No no - it's really interesting. I want to know too. But even if we manage to hunt down the Law Commission proposal, we still won't know for sure if that was the thinking behind the wording of the Statute. Commentaries I have read suggest it is to avoid criminalising the sort of behaviour described upthread. Maybe next time someone's partner does this, they could call the Police on them at once and then hopefully we could find out?

rooty, thanks for clarifying and sorry I was being annoying.

Altinkum, No one can argue that this isn't a witch hunt, it blatantly is. Can you expand on why you think this is so 'blatantly' obvious?

I apologise for using the term 'unsafe conviction' earlier on and admit I thought it just meant open to question. I was swayed by this person on question time a who said she would have given a not guilty verdict. I've been thinking about it and thanks to this thread I am now understanding why a random man can't walk into a hotel room and presume a person wants sex. They can't. And is it likely they would agree anyway after having had sex with somebody else. No.

vivienne I agree that be threads on here have been excellent for really clarifying how the jury (probably) came to their decision.

It would be great for some of the bellends on twitter etc to see these threads, but sadly think some of the big words, like 'consent' and 'reasonable belief' might just be too much for their teeny tiny little brains.

Frankly, the thing haunting me is how likely it is that he was caught, charged and jailed the first time he did it.

He got a text from his pal which said 'got a bird' or words to that effect. Without texting back or calling, he knew that turning his cab around, getting a door key and entering the room wasn't going to get him a punch in the face or told to fuck off. His brother and teammates knew which room it was well enough to go and watch and attempt to film it through the window.....

It's a worrying thought, no?

Yes! vivienne that makes me so happy. I'm delighted if the discussions here have given anyone a better grasp of the criminal law, especially wrt sexual offences.

What is interesting is that it is quite possible that this lady was a willing and enthusiastic participant in some great sweaty, breathless, drunken sex, but just because she couldn't actually remember it (or much of the previous evening) it is defined as a rape perpetrated by the man on the woman. Why is this? How is losing your memory of sex, akin to rape? It is a dangerous legal boundary which has thrust the topic of rape into an ambiguous national discussion, and the very last thing rape should be is ambiguous. This whole saga has set the fight for combatting sexual offences back decades I fear!

OH my giddy aunt

It just doesn't stop does it

It's like a tag team

No! I think it's a conspiracy to wear us down so that eventually we'll just agree that it's all very ambiguous indeed and no one should ever have to read anything or think before they form an opinion on any important issue just like all men should be able to have sex with all women all the time. If a strange physically imposing man you've never met breaking into the hotel room where you are (when you're so drunk that you actually pee and vomit in the bed and don't remember anything the next day) and just starting to have sex with you without any conversation or anything while his mates film it through the window, then he slips out through a fire exit and runs away, isn't rape well then nothing is rape. There is no rape.

i don't think this rape is ambiguous at all, but i'm assuming that rape being ambiguous is a euphemism here for being forced to consider that women might not be in a constant state of consent unless screaming and fighting a man off

david you'll be pleased to know that all your questions have been discussed thoughtfully and in some detail upthread, so you can just go back and have a read.

As for dangerous legal boundaries. I daresay the justices of the Court of Appeal appreciate your concern

"Great" for who, david?

david dear. It's not ambiguous. It wasn't great sweaty anything. It was rape.

I'm sorry you can't see the difference. It might be an idea to have a think about your own sexual experiences, especially with drunk women, and really reflect on them.

And please, if you wish to bring up utter drivel, you might be better off doing it on a forum of less well informed people, who haven't already had sorry excuses like you trying to prove how little you know about the case.

david

I suggest you read footylaw.co.uk/2015/01/06/ched-evans-sifting-facts-from-fiction/

We could invent any number of stories about what could have happened that night, and they would all be just as irrelevant as the scenario you described. The court however heard the testimony of all those present. CE was essentially convicted on his own evidence.

Poor david, afraid of being thrust into ambiguous national discussion. Just lie back and think of England, david.

From Ched Evan's FB support page:

"Andy Hurst prey for ched x
Like · Reply · 3 · January 11 at 1:55am"

Oh the irony.