Off Topic Bill Nicholson Arms

[PleaseNotPoll]

Evans' situation was totally different. The 2 verdicts were not tied together as they had markedly different circumstances.

The circumstances can't get the first guy off and convict Evans, though. That makes no sense.
The victim didn't give evidence against either man, so how can the second one be convicted but not the one who was more aware of how much she'd had?
Either she was too drunk to consent, in which case they should've both been sent down or she wasn't, which clears both.
I'm at a loss as to how you'd only convict Evans in this case.

 

[humanbeingincroydon]

Could this be next season's kit?

You must log in or register to see images

You must log in or register to see images

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Could this be next season's kit?

You must log in or register to see images

You must log in or register to see images

My first reaction is that it looks genuine. Not sure about it.

 

[humanbeingincroydon]

My first reaction is that it looks genuine. Not sure about it.

Just for clarification, these were taken in an Australian sports store the other day - so it's not some knock-off shop in Malaysia or something.

 

[No Kane No Gain]

The circumstances can't get the first guy off and convict Evans, though. That makes no sense.
The victim didn't give evidence against either man, so how can the second one be convicted but not the one who was more aware of how much she'd had?
Either she was too drunk to consent, in which case they should've both been sent down or she wasn't, which clears both.
I'm at a loss as to how you'd only convict Evans in this case.

They can. There was no dispute that they had sex with the girl, that leaves whether they reasonably believed they had consent. In McDonald's case he and the woman had decided to go into the cab together and head to his hotel room where they had sex. The fact that she was quite visibly very drunk paints him in a poor light but the actions I've listed put doubt on the idea that he couldn't have reasonably believed consent. Evans meanwhile is in a cab with friends on his way home and receieves a text from McDonald that says "got a bird". From that text alone he decides to have the cab driver take him and his mates to McDonald's hotel, lies to the receptionist to get a room key(he'd booked McDonald's room) and then lets himself in to see what he expected, McDonald having sex with a random woman. None of that suggests he is even aware that consent exists as a concept, let alone that he reasonably believes consent was given.

The trial was never seeking to establish whether or not the victim was too drunk to consent. The prosecution establishing her drunkness was simply evidence that the 2 defendants could not have reasonably believed she was consenting. In McDonald's case there is some evidence that she at times seemed a little more sober, although there's also plenty of evidence that also shows the opposite. Maybe Evans recognised her as the girl who had drunkenly fallen over infront of him at the kebab shop, maybe he doesn't, what is clear is that she was very drunk.

This is a great article on the subject, well worth reading: http://footylaw.co.uk/2015/01/06/ched-evans-sifting-facts-from-fiction/#

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

They can. There was no dispute that they had sex with the girl, that leaves whether they reasonably believed they had consent. In McDonald's case he and the woman had decided to go into the cab together and head to his hotel room where they had sex. The fact that she was quite visibly very drunk paints him in a poor light but the actions I've listed put doubt on the idea that he couldn't have reasonably believed consent. Evans meanwhile is in a cab with friends on his way home and receieves a text from McDonald that says "got a bird". From that text alone he decides to have the cab driver take him and his mates to McDonald's hotel, lies to the receptionist to get a room key(he'd booked McDonald's room) and then lets himself in to see what he expected, McDonald having sex with a random woman. None of that suggests he is even aware that consent exists as a concept, let alone that he reasonably believes consent was given.

The trial was never seeking to establish whether or not the victim was too drunk to consent. The prosecution establishing her drunkness was simply evidence that the 2 defendants could not have reasonably believed she was consenting. In McDonald's case there is some evidence that she at times seemed a little more sober, although there's also plenty of evidence that also shows the opposite. Maybe Evans recognised her as the girl who had drunkenly fallen over infront of him at the kebab shop, maybe he doesn't, what is clear is that she was very drunk.

This is a great article on the subject, well worth reading: http://footylaw.co.uk/2015/01/06/ched-evans-sifting-facts-from-fiction/#

Getting in a cab and going to a hotel with somebody doesn't establish consent.
Your own link specifically points out that the prosecution set out to establish that she was too drunk to consent to have sex with Evans, too:
"The only aspect that is in dispute is that Ched Evans says that the victim consented to have sex with him while the prosecution allege that the victim was too drunk to consent."

The judge also pointed out that she was too drunk to consent to have sex in summary:
“CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend.”
“As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse. When you arrived at the hotel you must have realised that.”

McDonald spent considerably more time with the victim, so he must've had a better understanding of her level of intoxication.
If she was too drunk to consent to sex with Evans, then she should definitely have been too drunk to consent to sex with him.
If not, then she was sober enough to consent with both men and she isn't claiming that she turned either man down.
The site that you linked to simply avoids this by saying that the jury could've thought about it differently and avoided the drunkeness aspect.
It's the key part of the case and speaks directly to the inconsistency of the result.

I'm not defending Evans. He clearly acted like a total bellend and I wouldn't have a problem if both men had been convicted.
I could have understood if both men had got off too, as the issue of consent was cloudy, at best.
Letting McDonald off and convicting Evans doesn't add up to me, though.

It'll be interesting to see what caused this conviction to be thrown out, though.
I can't think of what would cause that, apart from maybe something that the victim has said.

 

[No Kane No Gain]

Getting in a cab and going to a hotel with somebody doesn't establish consent.
Your own link specifically points out that the prosecution set out to establish that she was too drunk to consent to have sex with Evans, too:
"The only aspect that is in dispute is that Ched Evans says that the victim consented to have sex with him while the prosecution allege that the victim was too drunk to consent."

The judge also pointed out that she was too drunk to consent to have sex in summary:
“CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend.”
“As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse. When you arrived at the hotel you must have realised that.”

McDonald spent considerably more time with the victim, so he must've had a better understanding of her level of intoxication.
If she was too drunk to consent to sex with Evans, then she should definitely have been too drunk to consent to sex with him.
If not, then she was sober enough to consent with both men and she isn't claiming that she turned either man down.
The site that you linked to simply avoids this by saying that the jury could've thought about it differently and avoided the drunkeness aspect.
It's the key part of the case and speaks directly to the inconsistency of the result.

I'm not defending Evans. He clearly acted like a total bellend and I wouldn't have a problem if both men had been convicted.
I could have understood if both men had got off too, as the issue of consent was cloudy, at best.
Letting McDonald off and convicting Evans doesn't add up to me, though.

It'll be interesting to see what caused this conviction to be thrown out, though.
I can't think of what would cause that, apart from maybe something that the victim has said.

They allege that she was too drunk to consent. That's not the samething and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, just as many things alleged by both sides in a trial will not.

The judge qualifies it clearly by saying "in my view". He's not applying his view to the same standard of burden of proof that the jury must.

Anyway, you're missing the point. You might think McDonald was lucky to not also get convicted but there's clear reasoning as to why the jury did not. Personally I don't think the victim's ability to pick up the pizza box, or her willingness to go to his hotel room, or her saying "you won't leave me?" represent a strong case for reasonable doubt against all the other evidence. However, I wasn't there in the deliberation room and I wasn't there to view all the evidence that is not available to us but what I can say is that there's a clear difference in the cases against the 2 players and it's not the case that if one is guilty so is the other.

Read this bit:

"In this case, the woman went to the hotel with Clayton McDonald and video footage showed that she appeared to do so willingly. This does not prove that she consented – but the jury aren’t asked to decide whether or not there is proof that she consented (is there was, the judge would have stopped the case before the jury were asked to reach a decision). But it might well be sufficient to cast reasonable doubt as to whether or not there was consent – particularly as the victim had no recollection of what happened.

But such a doubt does not arise with Evans. The victim did not go back to the hotel with him. The text message (From McDonald, not the victim) merely said that McDonald had “got a bird” – not that the “bird” was inviting Evans to join them. Evans lied to the receptionist to get a key to the room. He didn’t knock the room door and wait to be invited in; but he let himself into the room where (if you accept his version) he must have known that sex was likely to be taking place. And he would have known how drunk and vulnerable the woman was – he had to step over her at the kebab shop.

Evans convicts himself with his own testimony: he claims that the victim consented. Did she consent to him lying to get a key to a hotel room and letting himself in so he could get a look at her at a time when he thought that she would be naked? No. By his evidence he spoke to her for the first time in the hotel room. Where was the consent to be ogled in the nude?"

This is a great outline of the differences in the cases against the 2 defendants.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

They allege that she was too drunk to consent. That's not the samething and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, just as many things alleged by both sides in a trial will not.

The judge qualifies it clearly by saying "in my view". He's not applying his view to the same standard of burden of proof that the jury must.

Anyway, you're missing the point. You might think McDonald was lucky to not also get convicted but there's clear reasoning as to why the jury did not. Personally I don't think the victim's ability to pick up the pizza box, or her willingness to go to his hotel room, or her saying "you won't leave me?" represent a strong case for reasonable doubt against all the other evidence. However, I wasn't there in the deliberation room and I wasn't there to view all the evidence that is not available to us but what I can say is that there's a clear difference in the cases against the 2 players and it's not the case that if one is guilty so is the other.

Read this bit:

"In this case, the woman went to the hotel with Clayton McDonald and video footage showed that she appeared to do so willingly. This does not prove that she consented – but the jury aren’t asked to decide whether or not there is proof that she consented (is there was, the judge would have stopped the case before the jury were asked to reach a decision). But it might well be sufficient to cast reasonable doubt as to whether or not there was consent – particularly as the victim had no recollection of what happened.

But such a doubt does not arise with Evans. The victim did not go back to the hotel with him. The text message (From McDonald, not the victim) merely said that McDonald had “got a bird” – not that the “bird” was inviting Evans to join them. Evans lied to the receptionist to get a key to the room. He didn’t knock the room door and wait to be invited in; but he let himself into the room where (if you accept his version) he must have known that sex was likely to be taking place. And he would have known how drunk and vulnerable the woman was – he had to step over her at the kebab shop.

Evans convicts himself with his own testimony: he claims that the victim consented. Did she consent to him lying to get a key to a hotel room and letting himself in so he could get a look at her at a time when he thought that she would be naked? No. By his evidence he spoke to her for the first time in the hotel room. Where was the consent to be ogled in the nude?"

This is a great outline of the differences in the cases against the 2 defendants.

I read the whole link and didn't find it convincing.
Evans knowing that this girl was the same one that he stepped over outside the kebab shop was never established, as far as I've seen.
Her consent to having him let himself into the room or seeing her naked wasn't what he was being charged with, either.

There's no evidence that she consented to sex with either man, so the issue of her intoxication is the main factor.
If it's been established that she couldn't consent to Evans, then she also couldn't consent to McDonald.
I've no idea how the jury was that finely split on reasonable doubt.

 

[No Kane No Gain]

I read the whole link and didn't find it convincing.
Evans knowing that this girl was the same one that he stepped over outside the kebab shop was never established, as far as I've seen.
Her consent to having him let himself into the room or seeing her naked wasn't what he was being charged with, either.

There's no evidence that she consented to sex with either man, so the issue of her intoxication is the main factor.
If it's been established that she couldn't consent to Evans, then she also couldn't consent to McDonald.
I've no idea how the jury was that finely split on reasonable doubt.

That's not the point though, is it? It's about whether or not they could have reasonably believed her to be consenting.

McDonald talked to her asked her where she was going, she responded "with you"(or something along those lines), he took her back to the hotel, at times she appeared less drunk at others more drunk and she appears to be willing throughout. Is that reasonably considered consent? Not imo. Is there an element of doubt? It's arguable, isn't it.

Evans gets a text from his mate, assumes he can go to the hotel and have sex with her. Then on arrival in the hotel room, he sees a very drunk naked girl on the bed and believes that a verbal confirmation is appropriate consent in the circumstances. Is that reasonably considered consent? No. Is there an element of doubt? No.

 

[Citizen Kane]

Could this be next season's kit?

You must log in or register to see images

You must log in or register to see images

Well we have a pre-season tour in Melbourne late July. I saw this morning that Ledley has flown out there to 'oversee preparations' for it and generally do some grassroots level profile-raising for the club. Could have some legs to it if they release the new kit there in anticipation of the tour, but mid-April seems a tad early. If it is true, can't say I'm a fan. Has the same 'pyjama' mood to it as the England kit.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

That's not the point though, is it? It's about whether or not they could have reasonably believed her to be consenting.

McDonald talked to her asked her where she was going, she responded "with you"(or something along those lines), he took her back to the hotel, at times she appeared less drunk at others more drunk and she appears to be willing throughout. Is that reasonably considered consent? No. Is there an element of doubt? It's arguable, isn't it.

Evans gets a text from his mate, assumes he can go to the hotel and have sex with her. Then on arrival in the hotel room, he sees a very drunk naked girl on the bed and believes that a verbal confirmation is appropriate consent in the circumstances. Is that reasonably considered consent? No. Is there an element of doubt? No.

McDonald would've had a much better idea of how drunk she was.
The claims that she was fine for McDonald yet smashed for Evans are unsupported by evidence.
There's also no evidence to say that she was unwilling with Evans, so her consent is purely based upon her ability to do give it.

 

[Roo]

Could this be next season's kit?

You must log in or register to see images

You must log in or register to see images

I expect this is the genuine article. The same situation occurred with last seasons kit (the one with the yellow), where it was spotted in a sports shop months before it was actually released.
I'm so done with the UA kits. They've all been crap for one reason or another. They look cheap and tacky, and aren't helped by the huge red eye-sore of a sponsor.

 

[bigsmithy9]

The photo of The Legends....that's what happens when you've been a fan for 60 years.I only recognize a few!!!!!
Pat hasn't changed ,apart from a bit of grey.
I can just see him in his first Spurs match,catching the ball in the air with one hand and winning the fans over.
.....and his wedding day.This big tall Irishman and his tiny,but beautiful,singing Irish wife.
I even remember Pat losing it wanting to punch some one (Leeds?), but he wasn't like that.
......and the day he was let go to the bloody Arsenal! I felt as though I had lost a brother! They thought Barry Daines was much younger and almost as good!!!! Some hopes.Thank the Lord Liverpool wanted to shift their goalkeeper......

 

[bigsmithy9]

......while I'm warming up.....the day Keith buggered off on a plane to Argentina.....then came back with a couple of Argentina players....and their first game against Forest after a lot of head shaking by fans and sports writers.
Man! What a touch of genius.....and what a lot of touches of genius we would be watching

Best wishes,Keith!

 

[bigsmithy9]

Talking of Spurs goalies made me think of Ted Ditchburn,of Push and Run fame.
I only saw ted towards the end of his career when he chopped and changed with Ron Reynolds.As the 1956-7 started,Ted had regained his place and was back to his greatest.so good in fact he was capped 3 times (as was Johnny Brooks).But by 1957 it was back to Ronnie again.

Ron Reynolds,by the way,had a problem next season.He was missing the ball.Apparently,as it turned out,they found out he had an eye problem and,I think,he had to have contacts fitted.
A little later we had Johnny Hollowbread taking over.Very reliable goalie.....until we got Bill Brown.

p.s. I have moments like this when I get flash backs.........!

 

[No Kane No Gain]

McDonald would've had a much better idea of how drunk she was.
The claims that she was fine for McDonald yet smashed for Evans are unsupported by evidence.
There's also no evidence to say that she was unwilling with Evans, so her consent is purely based upon her ability to do give it.

Who has claimed that? No one. Her state of drunkeness doesn't change significantly throughout as far as the court case is concerned and it doesn't need to in order to result in the differing verdicts.

I'll try this one more time:

• Was she very drunk? Yes.

• Was she too drunk to consent? It's likely but "likely" is not going to get a conviction against either of them and in either case it doesn't matter, you cannot convict solely on that, even if it could be proven.

• Did McDonald have reason to believe consent? Yes, they spoke and she said she wanted to go where he was going and willingly went to the hotel. Does this constitute reasonable belief of consent? It's close to the line isn't it, even though she's drunk he has established some kind of relationship with her. To me I don't think it's reasonable because she's very drunk the entire time, a right minded person would surely have had their doubts therefore undermining his reasonable belief. The jury clearly felt otherwise though.

• Did Evans have reason to believe consent? Yes, there's some confusion over whether it was McDonald or Evans that asked whether Ched could join but they both agreed the answer from her was "yeah"*. Does this constitute reasonable belief of consent? Absolutely not, it's one word out of the mouth of a very drunk person to which he had no prior relationship to yet had already assumed he'd be able to have sex with. It's not even close to reasonable.

The last 2 bullet points don't need to have "too drunk to consent" in there at all. The victim was very drunk and that's enough to bring into question whether they had reasonable consent all on it's own. That doesn't mean it's both or neither though, the circumstances are rather different. Evans makes a series of strange and unreasonable decisions that clearly indicate he expects to have sex. McDonald's actions are less unreasonable, even if you believe he's acted very irresponsibly.


*Obviously there's only their word that this conversation took place. but since it throws very reasonable doubt on anyother version of events, you have to take their word for it and then decide if it's still rape.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Who has claimed that? No one. Her state of drunkeness doesn't change significantly throughout as far as the court case is concerned and it doesn't need to in order to result in the differing verdicts. I've explained the differences several times now.

I'll try this one more time. But first lets see if we can at least agree on this:

• Was she very drunk? Yes.

• Was she too drunk to consent? It's likely but "likely" is not going to get a conviction against either of them and in either case it doesn't matter, you cannot convict solely on that, even if it could be proven.

• Did McDonald have reason to believe consent? Yes, they spoke and she said she wanted to go where he was going and willingly went to the hotel. Does this constitute reasonable belief of consent? It's close to the line isn't it, even though she's drunk he has established some kind of relationship with her. To me I don't think it's reasonable because she's very drunk the entire time, a right minded person would surely have had their doubts therefore undermining his reasonable belief. The jury clearly felt otherwise though.

• Did Evans have reason to believe consent? Yes, there's some confusion over whether it was McDonald or Evans that asked whether Ched could join but they both agreed the answer from her was "yeah"*. Does this constitute reasonable belief of consent? Absolutely not, it's one word out of the mouth of a very drunk person to which he had no prior relationship to yet had already assumed he'd be able to have sex with. It's not even close to reasonable.

The last 2 bullet points don't need to have "too drunk to consent" in there at all. The victim was very drunk and that's enough to bring into question whether they had reasonable consent all on it's own. That doesn't mean it's both or neither though, the circumstances are rather different. Evans makes a series of strange and unreasonable decisions that clearly indicate he expects to have sex. McDonald's actions are less unreasonable, even if you believe he's acted very irresponsibly.


*Obviously there's only their word that this conversation took place. but since it throws very reasonable doubt on anyother version of events, you have to take their word for it and then decide if it's still rape.

You're trying to claim that consent for Evans wasn't established and that's not what needs to be demonstrated.
There's reasonable doubt all throughout this case and no claims by the victim either way.

You've put the "Evans assumed that he could have sex with her" part into his mouth.
He turned up at the hotel and clearly wanted to have sex with her, but there's literally no claim that she turned him down.
We don't know what would've happened if she said no or even if she did say no that night.

McDonald only met her briefly beforehand too, so I don't see how he's absolved if she was too drunk.
My guess would be that they've done similar things before, so McDonald sending the text was basically his way of inviting his mate in.
It just doesn't make any sense otherwise.

 

[No Kane No Gain]

You're trying to claim that consent for Evans wasn't established and that's not what needs to be demonstrated.

No I'm not. I'm saying Evans' defence that he established consent does not meet the requirement of reasonable consent. That 100% does need to be established and would've been a requirement the judge sets out to the jury.

What's reasonably believed can be applied in any situation and it's going to be in most criminal cases. You could punch a random person that asks for your wallet. Why? You reasonably believed they were mugging you and you have a right protect yourself and your property. If your wife/girlfriend/friend asks for your wallet could you punch them? No, it's not reasonable to believe they're mugging you, or threatening you(assuming they have a history of this). If both these cases went on trial, at no point would the issue be whether or not the person actually intended to steal from you or harm you. The random person might've had a perfectly innocent reason to ask for your wallet, it doesn't matter so long as you could have reasonably believed you or your property was in danger.

There's reasonable doubt all throughout this case and no claims by the victim either way.

Is there? What would that be for Evans?

You've put the "Evans assumed that he could have sex with her" part into his mouth.
He turned up at the hotel and clearly wanted to have sex with her, but there's literally no claim that she turned him down.
We don't know what would've happened if she said no or even if she did say no that night.

McDonald only met her briefly beforehand too, so I don't see how he's absolved if she was too drunk.
My guess would be that they've done similar things before, so McDonald sending the text was basically his way of inviting his mate in.
It just doesn't make any sense otherwise.

If he hadn't assumed he could have sex with her, why does he decide to go to the hotel? Why do his friends go around the back to see if they can record through the window? Why does he not ask his friend whether he can join them, or better yet, why does he not ask his friend to ask her if it's okay if he comes into their hotel room to join in? He has a phone and he knows his friend has his, he could save himself a wasted journey. He doesn't need to say it, it's obvious what he assumed going by his actions.

You're right though, we don't know what would have happened had she said no but if the answer she gave was relevant then the crown wouldn't have pushed for the case give there was no way they would've been able to prove their word wrong.

I didn't absolve McDonald, he acted very irresponsibly and as you say the text thing implies that this was pre planned, although I believe they have denied this. I also think, based on the evidence that's available to us, that he is fortunate not to have been found guilty but again, that's of no relevence to whether or not the jury could be right in handing out different verdicts.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

No I'm not. I'm saying Evans' defence that he established consent does not meet the requirement of reasonable consent. That 100% does need to be established and would've been a requirement the judge sets out to the jury.

What's reasonably believed can be applied in any situation and it's going to be in most criminal cases. You could punch a random person that asks for your wallet. Why? You reasonably believed they were mugging you and you have a right protect yourself and your property. If your wife/girlfriend/friend asks for your wallet could you punch them? No, it's not reasonable to believe they're mugging you, or threatening you(assuming they have a history of this). If both these cases went on trial, at no point would the issue be whether or not the person actually intended to steal from you or harm you. The random person might've had a perfectly innocent reason to ask for your wallet, it doesn't matter so long as you could have reasonably believed you or your property was in danger.

He says that she agreed to it and McDonald backs him on it. She doesn't dispute this, as she can't remember it.
Evans has less reason than McDonald to believe that she's too intoxicated to consent, by all accounts.
Nobody has said that he remembered her from the kebab shop and it's not mentioned anywhere.
It hasn't been established that he failed to get consent.

Is there? What would that be for Evans?

There's no supporting evidence to suggest that he didn't get consent.

If he hadn't assumed he could have sex with her, why does he decide to go to the hotel? Why do his friends go around the back to see if they can record through the window? Why does he not ask his friend whether he can join them, or better yet, why does he not ask his friend to ask her if it's okay if he comes into their hotel room to join in? He has a phone and he knows his friend has his, he could save himself a wasted journey. He doesn't need to say it, it's obvious.

You're right though, we don't know what would have happened had she said no but if the answer she gave was relevant then the crown wouldn't have pushed for the case give there was no way they would've been able to prove their word wrong.

I didn't absolve McDonald, he acted very irresponsibly and as you say the text thing implies that this was pre planned, although I believe they have denied this. I also think, based on the evidence that's available to us, that he is fortunate not to have been found guilty but again, that's of no relevence to whether or not the jury could be right in handing out different verdicts.

You've never done anything where the outcome is in question or where you could've made more intelligent decisions?
He definitely went there to try and have sex with her, but to say that he assumed it is a big leap.

You ask why he didn't get the thumbs up from his mate before going there, but I think that he did. That's what the text was.
Evans knew that his friend would be ok with it because he'd already told him that he was with that message.
That was the whole point of it.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Prince is dead.
Anyone who plays a Celebrity Death Pool should've filled about five tickets this year or you're not trying.