Ched Evans verdict

[FreshwaterSelkie]

to continue the discussion as the previous thread closed.

So we've had 'rational' & 'logical'. Perhaps 'intelligent' next?

What would make it an MRA bingo? Calling us emotional or hysterical perhaps. Mad? Stupid? Crazy? Or just simply batches.

We've heard it all mate. Now toddle on.

batches? That would be errr interesting! I'm sure you can guess what word it was supposed to be!

Has it occurred to you that perhaps they have a point then? Because I haven't seen much rational so far. Just swear words and defamation.

Gh there's a few threads going and I'm not sure if you are on the right one because many of us are saying

what happens if you can offer money for people to come forward with information

what happens if accounts of people who were not present on the night in question are considered by courts to be evidence

why is that exemption allowing the alleged victim's sexual history to be looked at but the jury would not be informed if the accused had previous convictions

all these questions impact on the practice of law in general and they are being widely discussed - unless I've got my CE threads in a muddle.

if you want anything more than that, I don't have a law degree I'm afraid.

Well clearly you can't read then Gh05.

Ched is proven innocent. Can't we just leave it at that?

No, he was found not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Gh05 Please fuck off. And stay fucked off.

Lorelei76 I haven't practised in crime in years and I only know what the media choose to report of the new (or indeed of the old) evidence - which will be the salacious bits. I just don't know. The (mixed-gender) CoA thought it admissible in law and the (majority-female) jury were left in enough doubt to acquit. I will rad the full judgment of the CoA when it appears online with great interest - that will be the nearest thing we get to a detailed analysis of it which is not designed to sell newspapers by titillating the readers.

Yes Andrew, being a man is relevant to whether you understand what it feels like for many female rape victims not to have any chance of justice, particularly when they get dragged through the mill like this. As pp said, you're entitled to your opinion, which is an informed, even expert legal one, and it's fine to have different perspectives. But you're not best placed to decide for rape victims (the vast majority being female) that a civil suit is largely pointless. That's up to them. Whether they think its worth it for the closure and knowledge that some small justice has been done and that someone believed them, is their business. Your complete dismissal of that is quite typical of men, I'm afraid.

I'll give a donation to Rape Crisis too. They need it more than I do.

Lorelei76...

I can't say i have been following every detail of the case although i do remember thinking how strange his conviction was years ago. Anything which happened in this hearing i'm sure was above board or the judge would have said otherwise.

I don't understand the issue of looling into sexual history..surely it is pretty relevant in determing the character of the person, their sexual practices, looking for commonalities etc

Offering money for people to come forward...well ... You could argue that if Evans was poor then he wouldn't be able to do this but the actual offer of money is only for someone to provide evidence. That evidence still has to be considered and checked. It's not like the judge or jury are being bribed here.

This may or may bot be correct but i read something today about this girl having sex with a guy only around a fortnight later and partying with her mates etc. That doesn't sound like a traumatised rape victim to me.

venusinscorpio I don't think we disagree. I am only saying that it is up to each individual victim, which I cannot imagine anyone will disagree with. I see no "complete dismissal" in my posts and if there is one I apologise. And mean it.

The rest of my long post was to point out - with regret, but accurately - what a rough ride it will be for any victim who sues.

Andrew..sorry..what are you telling me to fuck off for again? Really does undermine any supposed intelligence when all people can do is swear.

I can't speak for anyone else Gh05, but I suspect it's because you are a GOADY FUCKER

You want ^logical, rational and intelligent'?

The idiot convicted himself in the original case based on his own testimony
This is a fact. Read the case transcript.
He has now changed his story and attempted to slander the victim based on her sexual history.
He was not convicted based on her being unconscious, just too drunk to consent
So some random man jumps on her knowing she is pissed out of her brains without asking, she allegedly says "fuck me harder" and then he buggers off down the fire escape.
She was still too drunk to be able to consent, even if she lapdanced on him while wearing nipple tassels.

And you think we're the unintelligent ones.

Oh and fuck off with your "that doesn't sound like a traumatised rape victim to me"
You have no clue.

Gh "I don't understand the issue of looling into sexual history..surely it is pretty relevant in determing the character of the person, their sexual practices, looking for commonalities etc"

if I was burgled, would you seek character references about me when the burglar's case was being heard?

can you accept that a woman might have sex with you one night, then the following night not to wish to have sex with someone else?

Re traumatised rape victim - do you think they all hide under the sofa for six months? Can you not imagine that it might be good to go out with your friends after undergoing something awful?

Also, how are you defining rape? Whether that person is or isn't traumatised doesn't change the legal definition of rape.

Charlieserra...another genius who can do nothing but swear... :/ well done.

My sole point on this is that there hasn't been a great deal of rational on the threads i've read but calling a man who is proven not guilty a rapist is 1) not right 2) a dangerous game for you to be playing as you are setting yourself up to be sued for defamation.

If you think that my points above make me deserving of being called every name under the sun then that days far more about you than it does about me.

Ps, I am not telling you to fuck off because I am unintelligent, I'm saying it because you are. Hth.

"proven not guilty"
Another demonstration of poor reading comprehension.
He has been not proven guilty. You got your words in the wrong order and it makes a big difference to the meaning.

Andrew

It's well known is it not that an alleged rapist will always get a woman barrister/solicitor to defend him, as it suggests that a woman will defend this person. That's a given in courts. Another given is having a disproportionate ratio of men to women, with women being the majority.

Fair enough Andrew. I'm sorry I'm a bit sensitive about this.

Heh, the privilege of one who has never even had to consider being a victim of rape.

Keep posting, although I think you'll continue outing yourself as an idiot or a rapist,so be warned that you'll not get an easy experience either way.

Gh 'a dangerous game for you to be playing as you are setting yourself up to be sued for defamation.'

Sue me! Go on you know you want to, go on, go on, go on.

Fuckwit! Intellect of a stem cell.

Gh05 - someone's "previous character" and sexual preferences are irrelevant in determining whether they had given consent to have sex on that occasion with that person.

I could go in for regular gang-bangs, but that still gives me the right to say no to having sex with a particular individual. And if I am incapacitated (through, drink, drugs, tiredness, whatever), I am unable to give consent, and still the fact that I enjoy gang-bangs is irrelevant whether a particular individual can stick their penis in me.

What bit of this is difficult to understand?