Ched Evans wins appeal

[Childrenofthestones]

Sorry I can't link but it's on the BBC site.

If the behaviours Ched Evans described seeing, which he said he interpreted as consent, are the same behaviours the victim actually displays when she is enthusiastically consenting then the suggestion is that it is too unlikely to be a coincidence

behaviours ched Evans only witnessed after penetrating her! It's too late to assess her level of enthusiasm (if using that as a gauge for consent) when you already have your penis inside the person.

Keir Starmer, when DPP was definitely involved in some guidelines for rape cases. I remember because to provide "balance" the BBC did an article about false rape allegations on the back of them being in the news

The new witness only came forward with this info (a) after a reward was offered and (b) with the full knowledge that those were the words CE claimed she'd said.

Personally I think that speaks volumes about the witness's credibility and I hope the jury assess and weigh his evidence in light of the facts above

They're hardly the most random, uncommon things you might do. Plus they have no bearing on whether she was too drunk to consent. On that occasion, or any other.

No Felascloak the decision to admit evidence in one Crown Court case is not precedent for another. 11122a You are right about MoJ being in charge of the law of evidence, sorry, but in any event not the A-G.

My thoughts are also with the woman concerned - but anything which persuades those wretched members of my gender who are so inclined not to commit rape is to the good, and it's in that sense that I think of future (preferably non-)rapists.

Those were CPS guidelines though. Not laws about what judges are allowed to do. They are very different.

It's all the same issue Andrew. We can try to educate men, and we can lobby to get a change in the law for rape victims.

Imo, a victim's sexual history is never relevant, and discussion of it shouldn't be permitted at all. We shouldn't pander to the myth that you can determine how likely it is that a woman consented to man A on the basis of whether she consented to B last week and C the week before.

Despite the judge not giving the relevant order, in my case, I was asked a question (by the prosecution) which required me to discuss my sexual history in order to answer it properly. So even when it is not permitted that doesn't mean it doesnt get raised. It was nowhere near as bad as what CE's victim has had to endure here though - she has really been treated appallingly.

Well to be fair he witnessed her demeanour and behaviour throughout and says it was indicative of consent, or so I understand. If the jury thinks she may have been presenting in a way that suggested enthusiast consent at one point during sex, it's not unreasonable to think that might have been her demeanour earlier as well. But surely it's not enough to make such assumptions on the basis of behaviour while very drunk of someone you have never met even spoken to? Surely?

And education would have to obviously involve the education secretary for schools and colleges because that's where it starts. Im 20 and a few years ago i heard quite a few open ( the teacher heard it as well) rape jokes which were not dealt with. Even Last year at Uni ( I do Law) after the sexual offences lecture i heard horrible rape jokes and general misogynist stuff in the the toilet by my fellow students.
I am a guy btw.

But surely it's not enough to make such assumptions on the basis of behaviour while very drunk of someone you have never met even spoken to? Surely?

Exactly, this was a totally different situation. This was a strange man breaking into a hotel room, uninvited, in the dark, and within moments of entering the room whipping his cock out and swapping with his mate (who left the room and told reception she was sick), and then ten minutes later sneaking out the fire escape.

Did you challenge it? Or did you 'do a Billy Bush' and laugh along or ignore it?

Far too many men do not challenge other men about stuff that matters.

It's not just the teacher's job to challenge this shit - every single man is responsible for doing it. Every single one of you.

The biggest threat to rape convictions is the (imo) likely changes to the anonymity laws. It just has a large public backing behind it and it seems inevitable they get changes especially with Cliff Richard as the movement's figurehead.

I was quite shy back then and those guys genuiely terrfired me. Last year i was hiding in the toilet so they didnt see me. I didn't want a fight and it would never achieve anything other than making it seem like im the nasty one.

The police staunchly oppose it. I'd hope that the government sees the police as a more relevant and significant consultee than fucking Cliff Richards.

Every man I've ever asked that question to says the same stuff. "It's too difficult". I've seen a fair few women challenge that sort of thing in person. But never a man. Never, ever a man.

Step up and be counted, for crying out loud! Have a backbone. It's far harder to women to challenge a man than it is for a man to do it, yet we manage it.

The reason men don't speak up is because they don't see it as important enough. They've no skin in the game. When it comes to the crunch, women don't matter enough to make them leave they privileged comfort zone.

My experience of threads on here is anonymity of offenders has large public backing until people think through the impact of that on serial paedophiles (instead of the poor, maligned man falsely accused of rape by some vindictive woman).

If anonymity to the defendant is granted it will be because of the police tipping off the BBC when they raided Cliff Richard's home. It was crass and unnecessary. Whether the fact that the raid has taken place should be announced afterwards is another question.

I have a question regarding the £50,000 offered by ched Evans. How would anyone who might have been able to help him get acquitted have known who his victim was so that they knew they could give evidence? no-one was allowed to name her so how could people know if they had useful information?

Why would (should. Could?!) the law be changed because of some unfortunate consequences on one (questionable) man?

How many women have suffered unfortunate consequences of the current laws on sexual assault/violence/rape, where her life has been ruined. Everyone then just shrugs. Nobody suggests changing the law.

JenLindleyShitMom you are making some awesome points on this thread! And your last ties in beautifully with your previous one about the defendant's prior sexual history not being examined. What a stark gulf. Did the prosecution team go there?

Of course the witness hasn't received money - it is conditional on an acquittal. I hope the prosecution went down that path.

Jen - the anonymity law relates only to the publication of information (e.g online or in the media). It does not cover all the other ways in which her identity could be shared.

For example - anyone attending court will know who she is. All witnesses are identified and named in court, it's just that the media cannot publish her name when they report on the trial. The defendant is also told who she is when he is arrested and when he is charged, and he is free to tell his family and friends her name. The reality is that in a small town, it would be surprising if local people DIDN'T know who she was.

That is the reality of how our legal system works.

AyeAmarok I at least don't suggest that it should be changed. I say only that if the campaign to change it succeeds it will be the BBC presence at the raid which leads to it. Whoever authorised that has a lot to answer for.

How many women have suffered unfortunate consequences of the current laws on sexual assault/violence/rape, where her life has been ruined. Everyone then just shrugs. Nobody suggests changing the law.

Absolutely.