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 two men's cases were different, choclover. It is that simple.

The way the two men came to be in the hotel room with the victim differed. The behaviour of the two men that night was different. They did not both travel back in the taxi with her, she only went willingly (though drunkenly) back to a hotel room with one of them.

The judge advised the jury to consider the cases separately. They could find both guilty, both not guilty, or one guilty, one not guilty.

What's not to understand?

Is that the benchmark now?

No it's not the benchmark but the burden of proof is set high, so if it was in any way possible that CM may have had reasonable belief in her consent, then he jury couldn't find him guilty, which they didn't.

With CE there was just no way he could have thought that he had her consent.

Or rather in the case of CE there is no way any ''right thinking person' could have thought he had her consent. He himself doesn't understand that women are not in a perpetual state of consent, which is why he doesn't think he did anything wrong.

Choc, I'll add my request to the several others: could you say here, please, what made you arrive at that opinion?

I'm glad you qualified that - as we cannot know what CE was thinking.

Malice, we can know that the jury - who heard him giving evidence and being cross-examined - cannot have thought he reasonably believed the victim was capable of giving consent, otherwise they would have acquitted him.

Well yes, but what 'a right thinking person' would have done is the objective standard against which he was convicted, so what he was thinking is irrelevant.

That last post was to malice

Yes. That was my point.

We'll never know whether or not she had the capacity to consent - that's rather the whole point of the case. The jury arrived at the conclusion that she did not have the capacity. I guess where I differ from many is that I don't have ABSOLUTE confidence in our legal process. I'm sure they get it right most of the time, but I know for a FACT that the correct verdict isn't reached everytime. My instinct says that this may well be one of those times.

I'm pretty certain, having read the court reports, that I'd have returned a 'not guilty'; my standard being higher than 'on the balance of probability'

Am I too late to join in? I reckon I could collect some faggots from somewhere. I don't have a flint to start the fire with, but I'm sure I could dig one up.

Does anybody know who is responsible for lighting the fire or can anybody do it?

The rape apologists' stance here is staggering. Terrifying. I actually do not believe that any humane individual could consider that is ok to fuck a person because they have recently had sex (quite possibly non-consenting) with someone else. Fucked up world we live in. This means that if I have sex with my sh tonight and then fall asleep any other man who turns up should consider he has a right to fuck me. And to say I consented. Well I don't. Some of you had better stay the fuck away from my kids.

This was a criminal trial, not a civil one. "Balance of probability" doesn't come into it. The Jury found beyond reasonable doubt that the man who entered the room by deception (ie she did not go to the room with) could not have had any reason to think she had consented.

And he doesn't have an appeal pending. He has had leave to appeal refused twice. The CCRC is looking to see whether those refusals were correct.

So Malice you are saying that approximately 120 seconds is enough time to objectively make a decision about whether someone who you have never met before, is highy likely to be very drunk given its 4am in Rhyl, who you have never seen standing up or had a conversation with, and is naked and in a vulnerable position, is consenting to have you penetrate them?

It was impossible for Evans to have had any sort of reasonable belief in her consent.

The RealAmandaClarke

That's utterly ridiculous. I cannot claim to know what CE was thinking, but the I'm certain he contests that he thought it o.k. to 'plough in' becasue the lady in question had consented - not merely becasue his friend had.

The fact is that we "rape apologists" walk among you and your children. We have the right to vote and our opinions (however unplesant you may find them) are valid.

I think a lot of people think that consent is a momentary thing - a simple 'yes' or 'no' regardless of the situation. Therefore 'she said yes' means that he didnt rape her. It's not, the situation has to be assessed first.

And I find that terrifying. I find your view abhorrent and very troubling indeed.

You're right. I don't personally believe that the case has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. It's a surprisingly high test (to my mind) and even a half-competent brief should be able to introduce the requisite amount of doubt in a Jury's mind.

The RealAmandaClarke considering some of the comments here can you add me to the letter please.

The Rapist ched evans did not take the time to consider whether she had the capacity to consent presumably because he did not care. Peoples thoughts about rape really need turning upside down, it is not consenting unless she objects enough but rape unless she can clearly and competently give consent.

I think CE honestly believes that because she said 'yes' when asked (by whoever) if he could join in, then he had reasonable belief in her consent. Thankfully the law sees it differently.

That's as maybe, but I think in this instance I'll be proved "right"

It's convenient for some on here to label anyone who expresses any doubt to be labeled a rape apologist. Tha'ts not the case. I make no excuse for rape - but rather will not not jump on the proverbial bandwagon when my conscience will not allow it.

I think EVERYONE involved has to take a long hard look at their lives.

Malice, beyond reasonable doubt is the criminal standard of proof.

It doesn't really matter whether you believe the case was proved to this standard - it clearly was, CE was convicted.

The fact that he doesn't think he raped her is neither here nor there. Your 'instinct'(!) about this case is neither here nor there either.

I suggest you learn some rudimentary facts about the criminal justice system, to help you to arrive at some better-informed opinions.

You are making excuses for rape.

And yy cantbebothered I will add your name to the letter

"even a half-competent brief should be able to introduce the requisite amount of doubt in a Jury's mind."

As he was found guilty, then it is clear that the brief did no such thing. Are you saying that his legal team was incompetent? That's quite a serious accusation.

Malice, can you answer my question about whether you think that objectively, given everything I said above (actually I missed out the point that he had not been invited in by her and had entered the room by deception), Ched Evans was in a position to have reasonable belief in her consent?

And maybe some rudimentary facts about basic human rights