Drunk consent is still consent is a load of rubbish. ( Ched Even acquitted)

[EveOnline2016]

www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/ched-evans-rape-trial-defence-12017591

I am fuming at this, how many women now will not come forward because of this ruling.

Sorry if this has been done already.

Boundaries, yeah, there's very strict rules about it.

It's worrying that previous sexual encounters have a bearing on whether you gave consent this time.

The past can be relevant in the right case surely? Most cases no, but occasionally.

Not in the way of, she consented with x therefore she consented with y, but if there is a distinct relevant pattern of behaviour it's different.

In this case, the other guys evidence was not that they'd had sex, but that she hadn't seemed very drunk at the time, but turned round the next day and couldn't remember what happened. If she has a history of forgetting sex afterwards, then that affects her credibility. If she has a history of not appearing drunk, but actually being so, then that can effect whether Evans had a reasonable belief she was consenting.

So, relevant, but for specific issues, not mudslinging, quite rightly.

In the same way, a woman wearing a short skirt is 98% time not relevant, but if a key witness saw a woman wearing trousers, it may become relevant for the purposes of the accuracy of what they saw.

Would an alledged victim of any other sort of crime be investigated in the same way, I wonder?

The simple answer is no, they wouldn't.
But, and I dont mean this as an excuse, no other consent based crime has been socialised like rape.

If someone is a victim of low level assault or theft, and the injured party is available to give evidence that they didn't consent to being hit or having their possessions taken then nobody is going to start guessing that maybe they actually might have or they might have given the impression they wanted that actually wanted those things to happen.

I need to go hide under a rock until all this goes away, it is so distressing to read the vitriol aimed towards that young woman. It really is upsetting!

In the case of privileged white accused men, their future is relevant and probative...more so than their past. In the case of the victim their past is more relevant than their future.

It's all a load of steaming bullshit and roundly sucks.

Of course drunk consent is still consent. If you drink drive then you don't get to stand up in court and say, oh no, I wasn't in charge of my decisions as I was drunk. Drinking impairs your decision-making skills, but it doesn't take them away. It just means you make bad decisions - but they're still decisions!

I don't agree that the consent lasts after you've passed out though.

It amazes me how the young girl is being attacked on social media. I can't believe his fiance has stood by him as regardless of consent /nonconsent he still cheated on her in a terrible way using a young woman as a sex toy with his friend.

this is a good, balanced legal analysis of the Evans case

thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

times change. You used to be able to rape your wife. Men should be considering, when they penetrate a very drunk woman, whether she is capable of consenting to that sex and whether the police would consider the same.

We need a drastic change in culture and attitude on this

No blueskyrain, because all the jury should worry about is whether she was capable of consent and whether ched Evans could reasonably believe that she was sober enough to consent

What the woman did yesterday of last week or last year is never relevant and that's why the law was changed. The court of appeal has fucked up massively over riding it in this case and quite frankly, set us back 20 years

Really Viques? If I make the wrong decision to drive when drunk, true it is a wrong decision but that would not make it anyone else's fault. If was pushed into a car and made to drive that would be different.

DS is 13 with ASD and currently expresses no interest in anything sexual. However we have discussed consent and it is drummed into him (and will continue to be) that a woman who is drunk to the point of unconsciousness cannot give consent to sex. In that situation a man should ensure she is safely lying on her side so she does not choke and has a cover over her to keep her warm.

Alfie - think the 'cup of tea' analogy was mentioned up thread. Google that if you haven't already seen - you might like to show it to him. I've mentioned it lots to DD.

Evans did not speak to her before, during or after sex.

How did he think he had consent?

I think this is a particularly nasty little sound bite that will do a lot of damage. Simply because of how people will inevitabley question it in this way. Of course if someone has one glass of wine and consents will being a little tipsy it is consent. But that has no bearing on this case, or many others this sound bite will harm.

Intoxication means drunk to the point of passing out. Really? What is your source Quimby?

And please tell me which crimes have intoxication as a defence.

WTF is everyone on? He never spoke to her.
He got the pass key from the receptionist without her knowledge or consent.
Why are people not more freaked out about this? I'd sue the fucking hotel into oblivion.

It's a defence to any crimes that are specific intent offences.

I didn't limit it to just passing out, it also covers intoxication through drink or drugs to the point where a person can not reasonably give consent. Most often the example is a passed out person, but not always. As distinct from being drunk where you can still clearly consent.

Perhaps she didn't consent to sex with the fella who popped up to claim his 50K either.

Perhaps he opportunistically took advantage of an inebriated woman and yet the wright of the conviction seem to have tailspun on his evidence.

Where is the investigation in to his previous sexual behaviour and credibility as a witness?

weight not wright

Jelly the room was booked by Ched for his friend, not by the girl. He wasn't given some random woman's room key.

*Boundaries

Would an alledged victim of any other sort of crime be investigated in the same way, I wonder*

no, because actually alleged victims in sex cases and domestic violence are often given much more accommodations than other victims, there's more scrutiny over decisions to drop cases etc. These crimes are dealt with more seriously, not less.

When you look at conviction rates for trials of sexual assaults, they are about the same a many other offences - a tad lower but not substantially. Bearing in mind sex cases are usually one word against another, whereas an assault will often have injuries, or witnesses, in frauds there's usually missing money and papertrail etc, actually sex cases do pretty well. Of course that doesn't fit with the media's picture they portray of our justice system.

This fuckin' stinks! Outside the court's delivery by Evans's lawyer gave me the rage. It was an actual WTAF was that moment for me. Normally I couldn't care with cases like this, because there's two sides. It's not so black & white. We only get the soundbites etc. We don't have the whole transcript. But two points that got my attention was:-

1. Her past sexual history was introduced into the court???
2. He walked into the hotel room when the girl in question was lying drunk on the bed and had sex with her???

His partner is either fuckin' dim or fuckin' greedy. I don't care which. The pair of them are fuckin' vile.

I didn't want to comment beccause I knew it would unleash the bile I feel about this. It has, and I'm fuckin' seething.