The total contempt that the men-children of today have for women in this regard is notable. But for a professional footballer, in the era of tabloid "kiss and tell" / entrapment at the least, just shows you the utter moron IQ of that profession as a whole.
Not being funny squire, but should he have texted back, "Noted. However I find your disrespectful language rather upsetting. To clarify, are you saying that you have met a young lady who would like to have a 3some ? By the way, I suspect that you are in the throws of passion as we speak, but could you take a bit longer over your text messages please." ?
Anyway, for me, the problem with the original events (as we can best understand them), isn't the text message, or the fact that two guys had sex with one woman, or that the woman was drunk and (apparently) blacks out after being drunk, but the fact that their mates were (presumably unknown to the woman) watching and laughing. if I was a relative of the girl and found out what happened, that's what i'd be angry about. i'd be angry at her for putting herself in such a situation, and angry at them for taking advantage of her. and im sure that that must constitute some kind of criminal offence, whether it's for those watching, or those taking part as well, but it's not rape.
It wasn't that I thought unbelievable. I believe the judge erred in allowing that evidence because it couldn't be relevant to whether Evans thought she had consented since if she said it it must have been after he had started having sex with her. The case was a very important one as it deals with the.issue of.whether a woman can consent to sex when drunk. The original jury only had that narrow point to deal with and convicted. The overturning of that by the appeal court is a disaster for vulnerable young women who now risk being taken advantage of when drunk.
tbh, if I was a woman, and someone told me that if I had sex while I got drunk then the guy will go to prison for rape, i'd be pretty ****ed off.
Why? Surely we should look after people who are drunk not take advantage of them. If you were drunk and someone asked if it was okay to take £100 out of your wallet and you were too pissed to answer and he took it wouldn't that be theft?
that's not what you said though. you said, "The case was a very important one as it deals with the issue of whether a woman can consent to sex when drunk." I'll be honest, I have never heard it suggested anywhere before, that it should be a criminal offence for a man to have sex with a woman who was drunk. Further, I find the proposition absurd, and repugnant to both genders, and to society. If you are talking about consent by someone who is too drunk to speak, then that is potentially a totally different issue, but my understanding is that this woman was not so drunk that she could not speak, and that rather she did give express verbal "permission" for a sexual encounter to take place. furthermore, a woman who was rolling drunk would imo not seek to have sex doggy style, and would (probably) not shout "**** me harder", as the jury accepted this woman did. coming back to your original contention though - that women should not be allowed to have sex if they were drunk - amongst other thing, this law would probably require notices to be put up in every off licence, supermarket, bar and restaurant in the country, warning patrons that it illegal to have sex with a woman who has consumed alcohol. that is not a normal society.
You are reading my replies too literally. In all of them drunk means too drunk to consent. Evans' own evidence was that his friend asked her if it was okay for him to join in and she didn't respond so he took that as a yes. I'm arguing that in this situation that isn't good enough. The original jury agreed. I don't think it should be relevant what happened next.
how would you like me to read your replies, if it is not based on the words youve used ? I believe you have got that factually wrong anyway. not that consent has to inolve a man asking if he can have sex, or a woman telling a man he can have sex, but i thnk you will find that the accepted version of events is that she said yes. that was evans' evidence.
Perhaps he thought he was joining a social network platform where "opt-in" is assumed if you don't explicitly tick the "no" boxes (did not say no / said nothing = yes) .
I don't have a problem with the language used at all. It might not be respectful but it's still pretty mild. My issue is, why on Earth does Evans interpret "got a bird" as an invitation? Why does he not respond to the text? He just decides it's okay for him to go to the hotel, blag a key to the room and walk straight in. No one who has respect for consent does that. Having no respect for consent isn't against the law in itself but it does make that person contemptible in my book.
I'm not saying that I know whether she said yes or not. My point is entirely related to whether her sexual history should have been admitted in evidence. To me it is irrelevant for two reasons : 1) She may have been too drunk to consent that night but not on other occasions and 2) Ched Evans did not know her history when he claimed that she had consented. The whole argument is set out quite well here https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/ He doesn't agree with me but the arguments are set out well.
I don't know how you make that connection NK. The two guys are mates. We don't know how they speak to each other. We don't know what theyd talked about that night. that text could follow a conversation over a pint between two friends who had planned to abduct a woman. it could also have been after a conversation where they talked about wanting a stripper. or a receptionist. or an expert on interior design or an accounting professional. or someone to have a conversation about poetry with. or it could have followed a conversation in which they talked about wanting to find a girl to have a 3some with. or (less palatably) a conversation in which they bet they could find a girl they could both have sex with, or a challenge to find a girl who would have sex with their mates watching. "got a bird" clearly meant something to them that night that didn't need clarification. what we know from the court decision is that what it didn't mean is that he'd found a girl that they could rape. I don't see the connection between the text and a lack of respect for consent. to me, the fact that they apparently asked the girl if evans could **** her, indicates that they did have a respect for consent. as my post above though, I agree with you that there are unpalatable aspects to what happened, and it seems pretty clear from his statements that evans himself now agrees with and recognises that.
that makes no sense to me still though. you seem to be saying (your point 2) that evans should not have accepted the "yes, do me from behind" as consent, because that might not be how she normally indicates consent. the point is that he gave as evidence of consent the claim that she had used certain words, the court for some reason didn't believe that evidence, and then it wasiscovered that others could verify that that is the type of language that the girl used in a similar situation. btw,bearing in mind that thee woman did not make an accusation against the player, is it your opinion that any time a couple has sex, the man should be required to be able to prove that there was consent, and that the woman was not too drunk for her consent to count as consent, and should he not be able to, that should be conclusive evidence of rape ?
Mrs Brian is a serving Police Officer of a senior rank and has worked on a fair number of rape investigations and a few prosecutions. Her view is that she is pretty bloody amazed that the CPS brought such a case. In London it would be most unlikely to go ahead given the poor nature of evidence regarding the only issue - consent. A large number of cases with similarly unclear lines as to who agreed to what and what condition they were in to do so, come up in a country where young people go out and get extremely drunk on a regular basis. If they were all prosecuted, the appeal courts would overflow with these cases and so, most of them get nowhere near a court. There are rights and wrongs to such decisions but ,as in all forms of governmental action these days, the money and time available has to be directed to achieving the most good that is possible. All thoughts of justice, morality and the public good are afterthoughts. There are no winners except the lawyers. The rest of us are losers. All of us.
The jury were not asked to give a verdict on what the text meant so no, their verdict does not rule out what you said it did. As I've explained, it's not just the text in itelf, it's the actions it triggered, which I went through. On the subject of whether or not they asked for consent, well that's a bit murky. Both McDonald and Evans were interviewed seperately by police and whilst they both agreed that it had been asked whether it was okay for Evans to join in, they each said it was the other one that said it. At least one of them either lied to police, or gave an incorrect account to police. I don't personally put a lot of faith in either's statement regarding the question for just that reason. And again, the jury would not have had to give a verdict on whether they asked so I'm confused as to why you see it as a fact. I'll give you some actual facts about the girl's behaviour on that night though: She's on CCTV falling over in the kebab shop. She's on CCTV pissing in the street. On arrival at the hotel she realises she lost her bag and, according to McDonald, told him she thought she'd left it in the cab so McDonald chased it down(shown on CCTV). She had actually left her bag in the kebab shop about half an hour earlier(iirc, I can't remember the exact time difference). She's on CCTV bumping into McDonald as she loses her footing walking into the hotel with McDonald. Evans wasn't present for any of this and McDonald only for the times I mentioned him. What it shows, in my opinion, is that she was clearly very drunk. I find it hard to believe that it wasn't apparent to either McDonald or Evans pretty quickly that she was very drunk. So when we're talking about respect for consent, no, I do not believe asking a very drunk girl whether they can join in is an example of this. I'm glad we both agree that the text meant something more to Evans and McDonald though. I think it means something between them because they have done similar before and/or because they planned it. That's something that makes me very uncomfortable.
The major problem for most rape prosecutions is that events usually happen in private with no witnesses present. There is often no dispute sex took place; the issue is consent. There may be no evidence of force because it's common to find that some form of sexual contact has been consented to, but not the specific act complained of. In the context of liberal sexual practices, the lines can be very blurred. So in many cases, how can a jury be sure (beyond any reasonable doubt) that an accused is guilty? Against this background, it's hardly surprising the conviction rate is low. But that's not the end of the story. There has been a politicisation of the investigation and prosecution of sexual offences. The police and courts are constantly pressurised by the government to prioritise these offences; we see cases brought to court on weak evidence which wouldn't see the light of day if they concerned different offences. How many times do we see MPs interviewed on TV claiming that the conviction rate for rape must be raised? How can justice be served by having a quota system? The Evans case highlights the point. How can the CPS decide that a drunken woman who cannot recall what happened and who seems to have willingly engaged in casual sex with strangers was a reliable witness? Or that there was the likelihood of a conviction on that evidence? Or that it was in the public interest to drag all the parties through the court process on such flimsy evidence? Bear in mind that a lack of resources is apparently good reason for some forces not even turning out for burglaries if you live in a house with an odd door number. When these cases come to court, they raise emotive issues for the jury. If they take a dislike to a complainant or defendant, you get decisions like those in the Evans case. A conviction based on a disapproval of Evans behaviour on the night; an acquittal at a rehearing based on a dislike of the complainant's sexual history. Either way, the weak evidence should never have resulted in either of them having to face such scrutiny.
