Ched Evans

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lewberry pie said:
I'm not sure people are saying they know better, just that what we have heard sounds suspect and Evans himself is adamant he's innocent, I've asked this question before but how do you have a threesome in which one is rape and one is not, if one is rape then the other lad is complicit in the rape, under American law and possibly English if you're in a group of people who kick someone to death you are deemed to be complicit, now I'm not saying I agree with that but I don't see how you can't either find them both guilty or innocent together.

The point of view I don't really understand is that rather than talk about what we do know people just want to presume the law is bomb proof and beyond reproach.
Click to expand...
You've obviously not read all the evidence if you think it was a threesome then.
 


HellsBells said:
You've obviously not read all the evidence if you think it was a threesome then.
Click to expand...
One had sex with her then Ched came and joined in, then he had sex with her in the other lads company, then the other lad left knowing full well what was happening, not to mention the lads videoing everything, either it's a group conspiracy or it wasn't rape
 
Medulla said:
Aye, bit in bold especially. If I had a teenage lad, I'd be sitting him down and making him take in this case. Understanding what is and isn't consent is probably one of the best lessons they could learn, and not as straightforward as 'doing what you want unless she says no'.
Click to expand...
Reckon that British law should require explicit approval rather than the absence of refusal?

I vaguely (autocorrect wanted to make that 'vaginally' :eek:) recall that recently happening in the US or Canada.

HellsBells said:
You've obviously not read all the evidence if you think it was a threesome then.
Click to expand...
Where is the legal definition of threesome?
 
Roger Senseless said:
Reckon that British law should require explicit approval rather than the absence of refusal?

I vaguely (autocorrect wanted to make that 'vaginally' :eek:) recall that recently happening in the US or Canada.
Click to expand...
It's because you're a rapist, I've informed the law and they're on their way round.
 
Roger Senseless said:
Reckon that British law should require explicit approval rather than the absence of refusal?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean. Absence of refusal isn't a part of British law on rape, as R vs Evans shows.

And I don't think the presence of 'explicit' consent is the same as actual consent.

So, no is my answer.
 
Lewberry pie said:
I'm not sure people are saying they know better, just that what we have heard sounds suspect and Evans himself is adamant he's innocent, I've asked this question before but how do you have a threesome in which one is rape and one is not, if one is rape then the other lad is complicit in the rape, under American law and possibly English if you're in a group of people who kick someone to death you are deemed to be complicit, now I'm not saying I agree with that but I don't see how you can't either find them both guilty or innocent together.

The point of view I don't really understand is that rather than talk about what we do know people just want to presume the law is bomb proof and beyond reproach.
Click to expand...


Why one was guilty and one wasn't has been explained countless times. Go back through @andymcnish 's excellent posts.
 
Muppet said:
Why one was guilty and one wasn't has been explained countless times. Go back through @andymcnish 's excellent posts.
Click to expand...
I have and it's nonsense, he could presume consent because she went back with him but he couldn't presume consent on behalf of his mate who she'd never met so he's involved in the conspiracy, he also sends a text that he's got one which indicated he knows exactly what is going to happen.

Even if he received written consent for himself, he knew the whole time him and Evans would have sex with her
 
Medulla said:
I'm not sure what you mean. Absence of refusal isn't a part of British law on rape, as R vs Evans shows.

And I don't think the presence of 'explicit' consent is the same as actual consent.

So, no is my answer.
Click to expand...
Now I'm confused (not to mention in the pub). I thought you were in the clear if lassy is able to refuse but doesn't do so, resulting in an implicit consent.

Rather than having to explicitly say "yes" before the deed, as I believe is now the case somewhere else where that wasn't previously required (Canada?). Which means Evans' mate wouldn't have got off (fnarr).

I think I'll shut up until I get home and can think.
 
Roger Senseless said:
Now I'm confused (not to mention in the pub). I thought you were in the clear if lassy is able to refuse but doesn't do so, resulting in an implicit consent.

Rather than having to explicitly say "yes" before the deed, as I believe is now the case somewhere else where that wasn't previously required (Canada?). Which means Evans' mate wouldn't have got off (fnarr).

I think I'll shut up until I get home and can think.
Click to expand...
Key bit in bold.
 
Lewberry pie said:
I have and it's nonsense, he could presume consent because she went back with him but he couldn't presume consent on behalf of his mate who she'd never met so he's involved in the conspiracy, he also sends a text that he's got one which indicated he knows exactly what is going to happen.

Even if he received written consent for himself, he knew the whole time him and Evans would have sex with her
Click to expand...
Serves the stupid bint right for not confirming in triplicate that the consent she never gave wasn't transferable.

Lewberry pie said:
It's because you're a rapist, I've informed the law and they're on their way round.
Click to expand...
Meh, let them try. I'm a papist rapist.

Medulla said:
Key bit in bold.
Click to expand...
Aye I know that's relevant in R vs Dumb & Dumber, but the question was (or was meant to be) whether law should require capacity to approve, and actual approval, before the deed. It currently doesn't.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Roger Senseless said:
Aye I know that's relevant in R vs Dumb & Dumber, but the question was (or was meant to be) whether law should require capacity to approve, and actual approval, before the deed. It currently doesn't.
Click to expand...
No, I don't think the law should require it, it's unrealistic and for sensible people an unnecessary step.
 
Lewberry pie said:
I have and it's nonsense, he could presume consent because she went back with him but he couldn't presume consent on behalf of his mate who she'd never met so he's involved in the conspiracy, he also sends a text that he's got one which indicated he knows exactly what is going to happen.

Even if he received written consent for himself, he knew the whole time him and Evans would have sex with her
Click to expand...
Like I said earlier Mcdonald and the two lads watching should really have been accomplices to the rape if Evans was guilty but no charges were made. None of them come out of this well.
 
Roger Senseless said:
Reckon that British law should require explicit approval rather than the absence of refusal?

I vaguely (autocorrect wanted to make that 'vaginally' :eek:) recall that recently happening in the US or Canada.


Where is the legal definition of threesome?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure there is one, however if there was, I'd imagine it was defined as consensual sexual acts between three people simultaneously.
 
HellsBells said:
Go and find a dictionary pet. Sounds like you need one. ;)
Click to expand...
But I'd need a one which defines "simultaneously" in the context of what sexual activity constitutes a threesome.

For example does it require parallel usage of multiple orifices, or the mere multiplexing of one and, if so, with what frequency?

Can I borrow yours?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lewberry pie said:
I have and it's nonsense, he could presume consent because she went back with him but he couldn't presume consent on behalf of his mate who she'd never met so he's involved in the conspiracy, he also sends a text that he's got one which indicated he knows exactly what is going to happen.

Even if he received written consent for himself, he knew the whole time him and Evans would have sex with her
Click to expand...

Part of this is down to what the CPS thinks they've got a good chance of convicting on if they take it to trial. If they felt there was enough detail on the alleged conspiracy such as the texts making it clear they had planned to trap a woman like this, they'd have gone for it. If not, they risk going into court with charges that the defence can cast doubt on and potentially reflect doubt on the rest of their case. I'd guess that the prosecution didn't think they had enough cast iron evidence of a conspiracy or accomplice charge.

This decision process can be a bugbear for victims of crime but the CPS conviction rate on rape cases is around 60% and compares favourably to rates for other serious offences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top