Anon Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Consenting to sex is a reasonable mitigation. Also, please don't cherry pick like that. It's intellectually dishonest. If you posted the whole sentence it would show I'm not attempting to mitigate rape, but show that Evans isn't the monster some are making him out to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Another criminal likely to get a club, a rapist, but they won't employ black blokes. Really? Don't want no black guy managing us. Belong on chains. But a rapist? It's just a bit of adult banter What? Behave yourself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Consenting to sex is a reasonable mitigation. Also, please don't cherry pick like that. It's intellectually dishonest. If you posted the whole sentence it would show I'm not attempting to mitigate rape, but show that Evans isn't the monster some are making him out to be. Don't be snooty in order to deflect attention. I wanted to know what mitigated rape. You said 'consent', which is a nonsense, since the victim was said to be too intoxicated to consent. Consent would mean it's not rape. But the victim needs the opportunity to change their mind, which they can't do if they've passed out. If someone consents then passes out, are they fair game then? Evans is a rapist. Is that not monstrous enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 If you don't want me to be snooty then don't deliberately take things out of context to misrepresent my views. "Now, don't think for a minute that this means I condone their actions or feel they shouldn't have been punished, but I do think there are mitigating circumstances that show these men aren't necessarily the monsters that spring to mind when we think of rapists." You cherry picked the most controversial part of that sentence, wilfully ignoring the qualifying statement, and asked me to defend a point I obviously hadn't made. I think you're getting off lightly with a bit of snootiness. Explain to me how Clayton McDonald was acquitted if there was no consent. Evans did rape her and deserved to be punished, but what I object to is the vitriol directed at him by people who refuse to consider the intricacies of the case and would lump him in with much more dangerous people based on reading the word "rape". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 If you don't want me to be snooty then don't deliberately take things out of context to misrepresent my views. "Now, don't think for a minute that this means I condone their actions or feel they shouldn't have been punished, but I do think there are mitigating circumstances that show these men aren't necessarily the monsters that spring to mind when we think of rapists." You cherry picked the most controversial part of that sentence, wilfully ignoring the qualifying statement, and asked me to defend a point I obviously hadn't made. I think you're getting off lightly with a bit of snootiness. Explain to me how Clayton McDonald was acquitted if there was no consent. Evans did rape her and deserved to be punished, but what I object to is the vitriol directed at him by people who refuse to consider the intricacies of the case and would lump him in with much more dangerous people based on reading the word "rape". No, I'm lumping him in with other rapists. The fact that he didn't hit her doesn't him less of a monster. He is a rapist. Rape in itself is a violent act. Just because a victim consents to sex with one person, does not mean she consents to sex with anyone. What is Evans guilty of? Not respecting this particular woman? Yes. Not respecting women generally? Possibly. Rape. He's guilty of rape. He violated the body of another human being. For his own gratification. He served 2 years for it. He's a rapist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 "Now, don't think for a minute that this means I condone their actions or feel they shouldn't have been punished, but I do think there are mitigating circumstances that show these men aren't necessarily the monsters that spring to mind when we think of rapists." You cherry picked the most controversial part of that sentence, wilfully ignoring the qualifying statement, and asked me to defend a point I obviously hadn't made. I think you're getting off lightly with a bit of snootiness. I don't see how highlighting the words you wrote, without altering them, whilst anyone who reads it can still read the original post, is any way disingenuous, but if you're in some way offended by that, so be it. You still haven't explained what these mitigating circumstances were. She consented to the first man? She had had a lot to drink? She had had her drink spiked? Anything? None of my suggestions are mitigating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scarlet Pimpernel Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 I don't see how highlighting the words you wrote, without altering them, whilst anyone who reads it can still read the original post, is any way disingenuous, but if you're in some way offended by that, so be it. You still haven't explained what these mitigating circumstances were. She consented to the first man? She had had a lot to drink? She had had her drink spiked? Anything? None of my suggestions are mitigating. Exactly. Without knowledge of the whole case none of us can comment with any accuracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 I'm offended because you took the words out of context. I can't work out if you're being deliberately obtuse or just dense. Let me try and spell it out as simply as possible; I post a statement saying I agree with the punishment, but think there are mitigating circumstances that show Evans isn't necessarily a monster. You take one phrase, "mitigating circumstances", and ask "what mitigates rape?", implying that's what I was advocating when it obviously wasn't. Do you see the difference between saying that in some circumstances rape is ok and saying that in some circumstances the offender isn't a complete monster? You seem to believe that every single case of rape should be treated exactly the same without exception or consideration of the facts. I disagree and the length of the sentence given to Evans would indicate that the British justice system disagrees too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Hang on. No consent, is no consent. So it's rape. He did that without her permission and took advantage of her being drunk, like that could somehow justify his actions? Isn't that what the judge & jury heard in the evidence? Hence why he went to jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 I'm offended because you took the words out of context. I can't work out if you're being deliberately obtuse or just dense. Let me try and spell it out as simply as possible; I post a statement saying I agree with the punishment, but think there are mitigating circumstances that show Evans isn't necessarily a monster. You take one phrase, "mitigating circumstances", and ask "what mitigates rape?", implying that's what I was advocating when it obviously wasn't. Do you see the difference between saying that in some circumstances rape is ok and saying that in some circumstances the offender isn't a complete monster? You seem to believe that every single case of rape should be treated exactly the same without exception or consideration of the facts. I disagree and the length of the sentence given to Evans would indicate that the British justice system disagrees too. **** about with semantics all you like. You say I implied? The habitual refrain of those that infer then claim offence. The jury decided there was consent in the one case and not the other. The 'British' (sic) justice system provides for the possibility of a life sentence in the case of rape. It also provides for the discretion of (generally old, white, male public-school-educated) judges to decide sentences. This one decided that a sentence where he would be out in two would be sufficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 I don't disagree with anything you've written ladyram. His actions were stupid, selfish and predatory and they landed him in jail. What I am trying to address is that there is an obvious difference in the severity of this offense and other rape cases. Andy, I say implied because of the question you asked. "What mitigates rape?" Why ask this question if you're not implying that's what I meant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 If you mean that this case doesn't have the same horror factor as for instance, the Delhi bus gang rape, then I can completely see what you mean - but a court of law here has seen or heard something that meant rape, hasn't it? And rape is rape? Even with what some see as a glamorous build up - (for want of a better phrase). I think it's fair to say some see this case as hey, she kopped off with 2 footballers, therefor it's her own fault? She wasn't going to that room for a game of Monopoly fair enough - but as far as she knew she was on her own with the other guy? Not Evans, he arrived after his mate texted him to say he'd got a girl, so went to join in. That alone amazes me as to why his girlfriend is still with him! She's of the opinion that he was merely unfaithful. Bonkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 If you want my honest opinion, I'm amazed that McDonald avoided punishment. If she was so drunk that she was about to pass out I struggle to believe she was in any state to consent to even going to the hotel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 If you mean that this case doesn't have the same horror factor as for instance, the Delhi bus gang rape, then I can completely see what you mean - but a court of law here has seen or heard something that meant rape, hasn't it? And rape is rape? Even with what some see as a glamorous build up. I think it's fair to say some see this case as hey, she kopped off with 2 footballers, therefor it's her own fault? She wasn't going to that room for a game of Monopoly fair enough - but as far as she knew she was on her own with the other guy? Not Evans, he arrived after his mate texted him to say he'd got a girl, so went to join in. That alone amazes me as to why his girlfriend is still with him! She's of the opinion that he was merely unfaithful. Bonkers. I didnt think he turned up later I thought they all turned up at the Premier Inn together. Or maybe I got that wrong. Did seem surprising that one of the players was found not guilty and the other guilty. Did she dissent to have intercourse with Evans or is that presumed from the fact that she was p1ssed? If it was just due to her being p1ssed , was she not also p1ssed when she had sex with the first bloke? It does present some moral difficulties here of course Evans took advantage of an intoxicated woman, he was very wrong and paid his penalty. But where the line is crossed is very difficult to judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Cctv shows her arriving with his mate, just them two. It'd be interesting to know what swayed the jury. Afterwards, Evans left the building via the fire exit and his mate went and sat in reception. You can see that's a bit suspect but that doesn't prove rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Cctv shows her arriving with his mate, just them two. It'd be interesting to know what swayed the jury. Afterwards, Evans left the building via the fire exit and his mate went and sat in reception. You can see that's a bit suspect but that doesn't prove rape. ah yes, Ive read up now and you are right, although the room was booked by Evans his mate arrived separately with the woman. wouldnt surprise me if this conviction was overturned tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 What? Behave yourself What? So they're saying "no" to black employees but "yes" to rapists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 What? So they're saying "no" to black employees but "yes" to rapists? Who is saying no to black employees? Have you got any proof that clubs have rejected job applications based on their skin colour or is it a wild guess based on the ****** Sol Campbell and Paul Ince spout every few months? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritstone Ram Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 I'm getting worried. I've shagged some birds that were pissed. Also i've been very pissed too so have i been raped by a woman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Who is saying no to black employees? Have you got any proof that clubs have rejected job applications based on their skin colour or is it a wild guess based on the ****** Sol Campbell and Paul Ince spout every few months? Dude, I'm saying that clubs will employ anyone. All this talk about no black managers and here's clubs hiring criminals. As if they wouldn't employ a black manager if they're happy to take on Ched Evans. That's what I was saying. In a sarcastic way. But you thought... never mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.