I couldn't agree with you more dannyh!

I AM old fashioned, and frankly I am appalled at this modern idea that everyone else is responsible for someone's behaviour, whilst they bear none at all.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the individuals involved in this case, the facts remain that she (by her defence) was so drunk that she was unaware that she was being penetrated sexually by a man she had just met. Did your mother never warn you? No?

- Well love, perhaps you should take a bit of responsibility for yourself and not drink so much then! Perhaps you'd be in a fit state then to say no to something you don't want.

- And, whatever made you think that footballers generally stay at Travelodge hotels, eh? did no little alarm bells ring in your tiny brain that these guys earn enough to at least warrant a Holiday Inn?

- Why go back to a hotel room with (I believe) more than one newly met male - did you never consider that you just might be running yourself into a bit of trouble, or did you just not care anyway?

- or did you see yourself as the next Abbey Clancy or Colleen Rooney? made up for life on a share of an income that most can only dream about if you could just snag yourself a footballer?

- and where was your self respect eh? rolled up and stuck under the elastic of your tiny lacy thong? Well get it back out and give it an airing, because if there is one true fact in all this, it's that no-one is going to give you any respect if you don't respect yourself!

Finally, please don't give me all that blaming the victim crap because the world IS a big bad old place, and if you don't look out for yourself, then you really have no entitlement to expect everyone else to do it for you when you choose to behave like a total idiot.

I couldn't agree with you more dannyh!

I AM old fashioned, and frankly I am appalled at this modern idea that everyone else is responsible for someone's behaviour, whilst they bear none at all.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the individuals involved in this case, the facts remain that she (by her defence) was so drunk that she was unaware that she was being penetrated sexually by a man she had just met. Did your mother never warn you? No?

- Well love, perhaps you should take a bit of responsibility for yourself and not drink so much then! Perhaps you'd be in a fit state then to say no to something you don't want.

- And, whatever made you think that footballers generally stay at Travelodge hotels, eh? did no little alarm bells ring in your tiny brain that these guys earn enough to at least warrant a Holiday Inn?

- Why go back to a hotel room with (I believe) more than one newly met male - did you never consider that you just might be running yourself into a bit of trouble, or did you just not care anyway?

- or did you see yourself as the next Abbey Clancy or Colleen Rooney? made up for life on a share of an income that most can only dream about if you could just snag yourself a footballer?

- and where was your self respect eh? rolled up and stuck under the elastic of your tiny lacy thong? Well get it back out and give it an airing, because if there is one true fact in all this, it's that no-one is going to give you any respect if you don't respect yourself!

Finally, please don't give me all that blaming the victim crap because the world IS a big bad old place, and if you don't look out for yourself, then you really have no entitlement to expect everyone else to do it for you when you choose to behave like a total idiot.

This with massive big king kong knobs on.

Which is why McDonald was found not guilty in the original case. I think a lot of people don't understand the prosecution case, or want to frame it in to a different context.

The difference between the two is that Evans was held responsible for his own behaviour. In that he turned up at the hotel specifically to take advantage of a situation on finding that McDonald had a woman there. The prosecution demonstrated that it was unreasonable for him to believe her capable of consenting, and that he knew she was intoxicated to a degree of being able to give willing consent, and that he left soon after sex.

Or are we just to assume that men always want sex, have no self control, responsibility for their actions or that is somehow the actions of a reasonable man.

Its different that the scenario across the land were drunk people hook up, and end up f**king each other and regretting it, because their behaviour is such that its reasonable for them to believe they have consent.

But on the case proven in court, which is currently under appeal, its unreasonable to assume that the accused didn't engineer a situation in which he had decided he was going to have sex, prior to meeting the woman (is it reasonable to turn up in the middle of the night, to a hotel room, have sex with a very drunk girl you have never met who came back with someone else, then leave).

Remember that rape is just based around several factors of consent, including the ability of the perpetrator to believe they have consent, and the intentions of the perpetrator (both in their actions before and after the alleged crime).

Now the appeal might change that case. But I think people seem to have the misguided idea that responsibility for actions only lies with one party in sex crimes, in this case the woman.

Responsibility for consent cuts both ways, or in this case three ways.

Of course, the accused is now entitled to a retrial, on the basis of evidence that its reasonable for judges to believe may have influenced a jury's decision.