http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17781842 Ched Evans who has scored 35 goals for Sheffield United in League One was sentenced to 5 years for raping a women in a hotel who was "too drunk to consent" despite her saying he could get involved to Clayton McDonald. I think it's harsh. Since when did drunken sex=rape? I don't know the inns and outs of it but if you put yourself into that position by getting smashed out of your head you can only hold yourself responsible. Can't help feel sorry for the lad, yeah probably shouldn't of done it but to spend possibly up to 5 years inside and his career essentially ruined isn't just in my eyes.
Sorry disagree, if someone's as drunk as she was supposed to be you leave well alone. It's not drunken sex if she didn't know what was going on, it's rape, she's had sex against her will. No sympathy for him, he's an idiot.
Agreed, but I think the technical term is "without consent" as opposed to "against her will." Sounds like she had no ability to express her "will" at that time.
I have to disagree...when Clayton McDonald asked her if Ched Evans could get involved her response was yes. From that it sounds like not only was she in control but she wanted it to go a head.
Hotly disagree with you! Are you telling me that if you get smashed in the city centre and get stabbed, then it's your fault because it's avoidable? Jesus, Mary & Joseph!!! THINK!!!!
So your saying because we don't have every single detail we just have to believe that the court is always correct?
It isn't only the fact she was drunk its the fact she said yes when asked whether Evans could get involved. It isnt rape is she said yes.
Sad day, but guilty is the verdict. The hotel receptionist was worried about the girl, that says a lot. Can only hope other footballers learn from this and behave like gentlemen rather than young idiots with too much money.
There was a thread not long ago by someone wanting us to go in for this guy. Talk about bad decision-making.
I,m afraid that thes footballers with too much money think they can do and get away with anything I hope this has sent a message out that this type of behaviour is totally unacceptable what compounds it to me his he told his mates to video it!
Firstly, how creepy is it going to watch a friend you've known since you were a kid while they're banging away at someone, having just sent you a text saying they've "got with a bird"?! Still, if she said "yes" to "can he get involved?" she obviously consented. Choosing to go to a lad's place while pissed, agreeing to have sex with him and agreeing his mate can 'get involved' doesn't sound like rape to me. I suspect the five-year sentence is the judge's little way of having a dig at the football world. I don't like the swagger and ponceishness of most of these pro footballers, but I reckon the severity is misplaced here. Any people asking if Sheff U's promotion will be "tainted", by the way: get to ****.
You missed the whole point of the trial, Iqbal. It's all about being in a fit condition to 'consent'. Are you aware, for instance, that a contract can be voided if you were drunk when you signed it? It's a point of law that's been in place for centuries. Even if she's shouted 'bring on the team' in front of a thousand witnesses, the same point of law would have applied. He's a stupid boy, as this subject has been airedin the media for some time now, and he should have been aware. As should you! Also, ask yourself, what if it was your mother or daughter?
It sounds brutal, but isn't that her silly fault for getting pissed and doing regrettable stuff? I don't agree with this principle of contracts being voided if you're pissed - you're the one altering your brain's functionality with substances, so you should be held responsible for your actions when doing so. Her actions in this instance appear to have been consenting. I'm not concerned with the letter of the law, because I don't believe governments should exist unless people subscribe to them, I'm more concerned with the ethics of the situation. I'd never go for someone who were staggering about and not in a fit position to remember their own name and obviously Evans and McDonald were ill-advised to. But I still don't think the bloke deserves locking up for joining in when she'd said 'yes' while the other bloke walks free. Seems less of an issue of 'was she too pissed to say yes' and more one of 'was it real consent?' If it was for McDonald, then surely it was for Evans too. If it were my mum, I'd probably get so angry about it that I'd lose all cold rationality and wouldn't even want to think about why she was on the pull in coastal Wales. But I can honestly say I don't think people should be let off the hook for things they say/do when under the influence. I've done some stupid **** and rightly been held responsible. This woman's gone to a bloke's place, had a shag and got her name in the papers when she realized it was footballers. Too cynical?
Legal and moral are often out of sync. You have to consider that he was probably drunk too. There are many of these "rapes" when a girl has woken up next to a guy she thinks is below her league and despite him being drunk too she cries rape to save face. The courts rarely get it wrong though, so odds are its a real case
So if you ply someone with drink and/or drugs (rohypnol being an example) that they were not aware of, and this led to them saying yes when in normal life they would always have said no, is this perfectly acceptable because they were off their own head? Frankly it does not matter who did or said what - if the person you are having sex with was under the influence too much, you are screwed (so to speak). The bit I really don't get is if the bloke is just as completely off his head with alcohol or drugs and does something he would never usually do or believes consent has been given, does he get off the charge because he would not have known what he was doing either? I think the answer to the last bit is no. But I do find this rather a hypocritical point in law
