Ched Evans saga part ???
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721  Reading 15 Oct 16 3.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
People put too much stock in the verdicts delivered in debatable cases like these. At the end of the day 12 people's opinions decided the first trial and 12 people's opinions decided the latest trial. For me it was always her word against his and in the first trial he was unable to show her version of events as being unsafe. The two new witnesses showed her up to be a regular p1ssed up party girl well up for a threesome with celebrities. Ched Evans was stupid to have got involved but didn't deserve to have his career taken away by a lying welsh slapper. I doubt that she will now be made accountable for this mess either. Careful hoof this is liable.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 Kingvagabond London 16 Oct 16 12.06am |
  |
|---|---|
|
And so in comes the controversy. For me no she was not raped. Her never accusing either person of rape is almost the issue. I may be old school at the best, rapey at the worst but if no one accuses of the crime then there is no crime, (except for murder). Surely this is just simply a f*** up where all men should be reminded to make sure they get consent. And for the record make sure they give consent. Then perform a blood test on all involved. Honestly Jamie' I'' not trying to trivialise an important issue, nor am I moronic other to try to do so, however their is certain issues where the victim is not a
Part of Holmesdale Radio: The Next Generation Quote cornwalls palace at 24 Oct 2012 9.37am He was right!!!...and we killed him!!... poor Orpinton Eagles........ |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| bexleydave Barnehurst 16 Oct 16 7.46am |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch
For those interested in the legal aspect and have Twitter, the Secret Barrister is worth a look [Tweet Link]
Bexley Dave Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing! "The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 17 Oct 16 11.09am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Canterbury Palace
Presumably everyone involved in the witch hunt that were so quick to condemn him will apologise now will they? I doubt it somehow. He's obviously a fairly unpleasant bloke to have cheated on his girlfriend, and in such a seedy manner, but clearly never deserved prison and the do-gooder online mob should be ashamed of themselves. Hardly a witch hunt. He was convicted of rape, by a jury of his peers, beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the evidence. Then on appeal, the defence presented evidence from two witnesses that hadn't previously come forward, until a reward was available, to give corroborating evidence that supported him in 'being reasonable in his belief that the woman could consent'. A paradox of this, is that whilst there was sex without consent, by way of intoxication, and thus rape, it was not unreasonable for the two men who engaged in sex to believe that they had consent, when they didn't. This means, that whilst the act of rape occurred, neither of the alleged offenders had Actus Reus (which means that whilst their actions were against the law, they were not the product of intent or guilty mind, as they were 'reasonable' in believing that they had informed consent, by way of action. The two witnesses corroborated a statement made by Evans, which showed a relationship to previous sexual encounters, that is validate him being within reasonable doubt, of belief of having consent (even though the woman in question could not give consent). Actus Reus and Mens Rae, are fulfilment requirements for a criminal act - and the foundation on which criminal law is based. An action is in itself not guilty, the mind has to also be guilty (which is why self defence, insanity, diminished responsibility, greater good etc. are all legal defences). So people who claim this is 'total vindication' and victim blaming, are basing their views on things unproven in court. Ched Evans is a lucky man. Without 50k and the wide public appeal, he'd still be guilty.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 17 Oct 16 12.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Hardly a witch hunt. He was convicted of rape, by a jury of his peers, beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the evidence. Then on appeal, the defence presented evidence from two witnesses that hadn't previously come forward, until a reward was available, to give corroborating evidence that supported him in 'being reasonable in his belief that the woman could consent'. A paradox of this, is that whilst there was sex without consent, by way of intoxication, and thus rape, it was not unreasonable for the two men who engaged in sex to believe that they had consent, when they didn't. This means, that whilst the act of rape occurred, neither of the alleged offenders had Actus Reus (which means that whilst their actions were against the law, they were not the product of intent or guilty mind, as they were 'reasonable' in believing that they had informed consent, by way of action. The two witnesses corroborated a statement made by Evans, which showed a relationship to previous sexual encounters, that is validate him being within reasonable doubt, of belief of having consent (even though the woman in question could not give consent). Actus Reus and Mens Rae, are fulfilment requirements for a criminal act - and the foundation on which criminal law is based. An action is in itself not guilty, the mind has to also be guilty (which is why self defence, insanity, diminished responsibility, greater good etc. are all legal defences). So people who claim this is 'total vindication' and victim blaming, are basing their views on things unproven in court. Ched Evans is a lucky man. Without 50k and the wide public appeal, he'd still be guilty. I still don't undertand how any preferences the girl may have - drunk or sober can make a difference, if she was intoxicated and Evans wasn't. You may as well find another 2 blokes saying she always sings like Shirley Bassey during sex when she's sober and she unless Ched knows a few of Dame Shirley's numbers then he's guilty boyo.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 17 Oct 16 12.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kingvagabond
And so in comes the controversy. For me no she was not raped. Her never accusing either person of rape is almost the issue. I may be old school at the best, rapey at the worst but if no one accuses of the crime then there is no crime, (except for murder). Surely this is just simply a f*** up where all men should be reminded to make sure they get consent. And for the record make sure they give consent. Then perform a blood test on all involved. Honestly Jamie' I'' not trying to trivialise an important issue, nor am I moronic other to try to do so, however their is certain issues where the victim is not a That's not what the findings of the case are though. She was incapable of consent, and thus raped. However, where intoxication is concerned, because its 'uninformed consent' the law stipulates for the possibility that a defendant 'acted in good faith' when given consent (which is why McDonald was found not guilty as he met and went back to the hotel with the woman - as such it was reasonable for him to believe he had informed consent, even though she could not consent). Evans, on appeal, demonstrated it was reasonable for him to believe he had consent, by corroborating events by a pattern (i.e. confirming his statement that the woman was active).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Part Time James 17 Oct 16 12.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
This is why one ought to always get married to a girl before trying to have sex. Preferably one that doesn't drink or take drugs.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 17 Oct 16 2.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Part Time James
This is why one ought to always get married to a girl before trying to have sex. Preferably one that doesn't drink or take drugs. This is why safe sex involves a spade, quick lime and duct tape. If you're going to be a predator, do it properly.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| sickboy Deal or Croydon 17 Oct 16 2.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
This is why safe sex involves a spade, quick lime and duct tape. If you're going to be a predator, do it properly. Dont you find the quick lime burns your knob tho, or have i got things in the wrong order.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 17 Oct 16 2.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by chris123
I still don't undertand how any preferences the girl may have - drunk or sober can make a difference, if she was intoxicated and Evans wasn't. You may as well find another 2 blokes saying she always sings like Shirley Bassey during sex when she's sober and she unless Ched knows a few of Dame Shirley's numbers then he's guilty boyo. It speaks to corroboration of Evans statement to the police. That what she said, and did, with him, can be corroborated with his statement, lends credence to him being 'reasonable in believing he had consent' (when in fact he did not. Usually this isn't relevant, but because intoxication makes consent unreliable - the notion of 'being reasonable in belief of consent' is vital. Its what's known as a reasonable doubt defence. Rather than prove innocence of a crime, the defence makes a case that revolves around producing doubt in the jury's mind. Effectively, the case has a rape victim, and no rapists. Usually you can spot the 'I knew I was guilty but got away with it' if they sue for damages and win.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 17 Oct 16 2.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by sickboy
Dont you find the quick lime burns your knob tho, or have i got things in the wrong order. I like that
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 17 Oct 16 3.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Part Time James
This is why one ought to always get married to a girl before trying to have sex. Preferably one that doesn't drink or take drugs. Is that a Neil Warnock quote too?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.