Mr Tibbs Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Ched Ched Ched! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tombo Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 This is probably about the time we should mention that there were drugs in the girl's system that she said she did not take, and must have been mixed into her drink when she wasn't looking. Now is she a liar, or did they spike her drink? Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daaave Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 It's not that difficult. If you are in a position to wonder where the line is, you should avoid having sex with that person. You know what, they might even respect you for it. We're going round in circles here and you're right, in an ideal world that would be the end of it. Unfortunately we don't live in one. What concerns me is that, by my understanding of the law, a person could obtain all reasonable levels of consent in total belief their sexual partner was in fit state of mind but in some situations this could still be rape. Now if my understanding is wrong, and perhaps it is I'm not fully sure of the implications of point 2 in the law you posted earlier, then I imagine that many others misunderstand this too. This in itself is a problem because that misunderstanding could explain some of the victim blaming that goes on when rape cases involve alcohol and/or drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 This is probably about the time we should mention that there were drugs in the girl's system that she said she did not take, and must have been mixed into her drink when she wasn't looking. Now is she a liar, or did they spike her drink? Discuss. her drinks were not necessarily spiked by them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tombo Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 her drinks were not necessarily spiked by them Hm, very true also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 From wikipedia, for what it is worth. British law doesn't include male rape as a criminal offense and it is recorded as non-consensual buggery. The convicted rapist can be imprisoned for life, stated Henry Leak, the chairman of Survivors organization, while buggery only carries 10 years maximum as a sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrivateDerby Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Sorry Rynny but a man forcing his penis into another's mouth or arse is classified as rape. All a bit confusing isn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I'm fairly sure you can tell the difference between a woman that has had a few and tipsy or on the verge of passing out, walking in a straight line with heels on and not slurring compared to carrying her shoes swerving left to right on the pavement and slurring. And during sex you must tell, if she's just laid there eyes glazed over barely with it you shouldn't be on there, if she's switching positions freely, going down for blow jobs on her on accord then clearly theres a green light there. Ok so was this lady too p1ssed. Forgets pizza and then goes back to collect it. Looks pretty steady on her feet to me. http://www.chedevans.com/judge-for-yourself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Hm, very true also. I think the story was that they Macdonald met her at a takeaway after the nightclub, Evans met her for the first time when she was at the Premier Inn so I dont think either of them could have spiked her drink unless they put something on her pizza. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Ok so was this lady too p1ssed. Forgets pizza and then goes back to collect it. Looks pretty steady on her feet to me. http://www.chedevans.com/judge-for-yourself Really hard to tell from a 2 minute video that jumps, plus her face is blurred out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastKentRam Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Really hard to tell from a 2 minute video that jumps, plus her face is blurred out Reckon they could have done better though. Kebab shop straggler I suppose, never going to be above a 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Really hard to tell from a 2 minute video that jumps, plus her face is blurred out Ah, so does she look **** faced or not? We will never know. Shes not semi-conscious that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Ah, so does she look **** faced or not? We will never know. Shes not semi-conscious that's for sure. Honestly can't say from that video, with the frames jumping it's impossible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Sorry Rynny but a man forcing his penis into another's mouth or arse is classified as rape. All a bit confusing isn't it.I believe that is for a woman on a man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 This is probably about the time we should mention that there were drugs in the girl's system that she said she did not take, and must have been mixed into her drink when she wasn't looking. Now is she a liar, or did they spike her drink? Discuss.I've never really gotten this whole "trial by public" thing people do. A court made a ruling, based and focused on the best evidence presented, by representatives on both sides. If there was a mistake, there is a procedure in place which will hopefully be able to sort out any errors, which will hopefully be extremely rare.The best we can do is look at little bits and pieces put forward by people, who will tend to only show their side of it, and try and make what will at best be a very narrow judgement. At this time he is still trying to clear his name, and if he does, all the best for him, but at this point in time that is not the case.The real question is whether someone convicted of rape should ever be allowed to play again, and to be completely honest the only case that I would ever be comfortable with a convicted criminal playing again is when they have repented for their actions, served their time, and made some moves to help the community around them. The issue with such exists that a wrongly convicted person, simply telling the truth, comes across as unrepentant. For that reason I'm always tempted to think that those convicted of serious crime simply being barred from playing professionally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I've never really gotten this whole "trial by public" thing people do. A court made a ruling, based and focused on the best evidence presented, by representatives on both sides. If there was a mistake, there is a procedure in place which will hopefully be able to sort out any errors, which will hopefully be extremely rare. The best we can do is look at little bits and pieces put forward by people, who will tend to only show their side of it, and try and make what will at best be a very narrow judgement. At this time he is still trying to clear his name, and if he does, all the best for him, but at this point in time that is not the case. The real question is whether someone convicted of rape should ever be allowed to play again, and to be completely honest the only case that I would ever be comfortable with a convicted criminal playing again is when they have repented for their actions, served their time, and made some moves to help the community around them. The issue with such exists that a wrongly convicted person, simply telling the truth, comes across as unrepentant. For that reason I'm always tempted to think that those convicted of serious crime simply being barred from playing professionally. I think the thing about "trial by public" is that it often works. Miscarriages of justice are overturned by public scrutiny eventually demanding a re-trial. This guy maintains his innocence. His girlfiend has stood by him. The judgments were mutually inconsistent; how could one be acquited and the other not? The case against him seems flimsy at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted October 2, 2014 Author Share Posted October 2, 2014 Ok so was this lady too p1ssed. Forgets pizza and then goes back to collect it. Looks pretty steady on her feet to me.http://www.chedevans.com/judge-for-yourself Was more alcohol consumed between her arriving and Evans arriving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted October 2, 2014 Author Share Posted October 2, 2014 The website also states that short time before thr girl was seen to be unstable on her feet on cctv footage in town Ched went to the teavelodge to see what girl his mate was with (why?) He lied to get a key card His brothers went to watch from the window and record it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 The website also states that short time before thr girl was seen to be unstable on her feet on cctv footage in town Ched went to the teavelodge to see what girl his mate was with (why?) He lied to get a key card His brothers went to watch from the window and record it. its morally indefensible, cheating on his girlfriend, gatecrashing his mate's session etc, (maybe he fancied a threesome?) what his brothers were up to god knows. or the guy at reception listening at the door. But really is it any different to an average night in magaluf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Was more alcohol consumed between her arriving and Evans arriving? Does the Premier Inn sell alcohol in the rooms? I dont think so. Macdonald was acquited of rape, so Evans arriving later doesnt seem to change anything. I think the problem may be that Evans joining in is seen as tantamount to a gang bang. His conduct may be morally wrong , but I dont see any basis for saying she consented to one but not the other simply because she was drunk. If she said no to Evans then fair enough its rape. If not then not. Her having had something to drink even a lot to drink wont change that unless she was completely out of it. She wasnt or else Macdonald would have been convicted also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.