Ched Evans - should he play football again?

Last edited by Photek on Tue Oct 21, 2014 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[iup=3595199]Skarjo[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3595197]Photek[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3595193]Skarjo[/iup] wrote:That's irrelevant to your saying that someone shouldn't be allowed to accuse someone of rape if they're too drunk to remember what's happened to them.

I'm not saying that at all. Be better.

That is literally what you said.

[iup=3595054]Photek[/iup] wrote:The crux of the matter here is that she cant remember what happened in the room at all. How can anyone be accused of rape if no evidence is available.

I'll expand on that then. No evidence that consent wasnt given, nobody was accused of rape ergo how can the police accuse people of rape with literally no evidence not even testimony from the 'victim'.

I know what the law states but its actually possible that she gave consent willingly, its not beyond the realms of possibility no matter how you twist it. I'm done. I've been called a rape apologist, questioned whether i agree with women getting death threats and asked bizarrely how id treat my daughter if such an awful thing happened.

By the way, on the subject of someone 'not walking drunk', is it not possible that her condition deteriorated after she entered the hotel? I've had nights out where I've stopped drinking but continued to get more intoxicated for a while afterwards, as not all the alcohol I've already had has worked its way through my system yet at the point I stop.

[iup=3595204]Photek[/iup] wrote:I'll expand on that then. No evidence that consent wasnt given, nobody was accused of rape ergo how can the police accuse people of rape with literally no evidence not even testimony from the 'victim'.

Can anyone better acquainted with the details of the case confirm any of this because absolutely no source I can find supports this interpretation of events.

Also, for someone so opposed to being labelled a rape apologist, I can't believe you had the lack of self-awareness to put victim in scare-quotes.

[iup=3595211]Skarjo[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3595204]Photek[/iup] wrote:I'll expand on that then. No evidence that consent wasnt given, nobody was accused of rape ergo how can the police accuse people of rape with literally no evidence not even testimony from the 'victim'.

Can anyone better acquainted with the details of the case confirm any of this because absolutely no source I can find supports this interpretation of events.

Also, for someone so opposed to being labelled a rape apologist, I can't believe you had the lack of self-awareness to put victim in scare-quotes.

The jury previously heard how both Mr Evans, originally from St Asaph, Denbighshire, but now of Penistone, South Yorkshire, and Mr McDonald, of Crewe, Cheshire, accepted they had intercourse with the woman.

However, the prosecution allege she was in no fit state to consent.

During cross-examination by Mr McDonald's barrister, Lloyd Morgan, the woman agreed she had drunk two-thirds of a bottle of wine and the other alcohol that night.

She said she could not remember getting in a taxi with Mr McDonald and asking where he was going.

Mr Morgan said the footballer told her he was going to the hotel and she said she was going with him.

After talking in room 14, he said: "You each took your clothes off and he began having sex with you. Do you remember?"

She replied: "No."

Mr Morgan: "You were happy for this sex to go on weren't you?"

Woman: "I don't remember."

When Mr Morgan suggested she agreed to Mr Evans getting involved when he entered the room, she said: "I don't remember."

Mr Morgan: "You say you had no recollection as to what happened in the street, the taxi or hotel room?"

Woman: "Yes."

Mr Morgan: "Is that actually correct or is it you woke up and knew what had happened and were embarrassed about it?"

Woman: "No."

David Fish QC, for Ched Evans, said :"Whatever you had to drink that night and whatever the effect of any other substance, you went willingly to the Premier Inn with Mr McDonald?"

Reply: "I don't remember."

Mr Fish: "I suggest you had sexual intercourse with both men in that room willingly."

Reply: "I don't remember."

Mr Fish: "You gave no indication to either man you didn't want to have sex."

Reply: "I don't remember."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-nort ... s-17689346

I have no idea what Photek means by there was no testimony from the victim. Unless he means because she couldn't remember then she couldn’t testify to what happened in the room?

[iup=3595211]Skarjo[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3595204]Photek[/iup] wrote:I'll expand on that then. No evidence that consent wasnt given, nobody was accused of rape ergo how can the police accuse people of rape with literally no evidence not even testimony from the 'victim'.

Can anyone better acquainted with the details of the case confirm any of this because absolutely no source I can find supports this interpretation of events.

Also, for someone so opposed to being labelled a rape apologist, I can't believe you had the lack of self-awareness to put victim in scare-quotes.

I dont think many people would like being labelled a rape apologist, I havent figures to hand but I reckon no one would be happy about it.

Also, am I correct in thinking that you havent even looked at the evidence and testimony in this case yet, have argued me tooth and nail about it for the past hour or so? Wow. :lol:

[iup=3595206]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:By the way, on the subject of someone 'not walking drunk', is it not possible that her condition deteriorated after she entered the hotel? I've had nights out where I've stopped drinking but continued to get more intoxicated for a while afterwards, as not all the alcohol I've already had has worked its way through my system yet at the point I stop.

Aye, I was thinking that. You can get home fine and then as soon as your body shuts down, you're basically out for the count. (Not saying that's the case here, just agreeing with Eighty.)

She maintains a claim that her drink had been spiked, although it couldn't have been by either of the accused because they weren't in the club together.

The prosecuting QC said:

Mr Philpotts said: "The prosecution say that she did not truly consent to that activity.

"She was in no fit state to consent.

"And we say that neither man reasonably believed she was consenting."

[iup=3595215]Photek[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3595211]Skarjo[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3595204]Photek[/iup] wrote:I'll expand on that then. No evidence that consent wasnt given, nobody was accused of rape ergo how can the police accuse people of rape with literally no evidence not even testimony from the 'victim'.

Can anyone better acquainted with the details of the case confirm any of this because absolutely no source I can find supports this interpretation of events.

Also, for someone so opposed to being labelled a rape apologist, I can't believe you had the lack of self-awareness to put victim in scare-quotes.

I dont think many people would like being labelled a rape apologist, I havent figures to hand but I reckon no one would be happy about it.

Also, am I correct in thinking that you havent even looked at the evidence and testimony in this case yet, have argued me tooth and nail about it for the past hour or so? Wow.

I'm familiar enough with the case to have no idea what on earth you're going on about when you say that nobody was accused of rape or that the victim didn't testify and that there's 'literally no evidence'.

To bring Photek's daughter - at a future age or otherwise - into the debate is classless and was totally unnecessary, so I can understand why he would take offence to that. However, Photek's points don't seem to have been particularly well-thought-out and have been argued to the extent that I can also understand why people have been offended by them.

Photek, I'd read through your posts in this thread from the beginning again, because while I'm sure you didn't set out to defend Evans or suggest you are in anyway defensive of rape and rape culture, some of your posts suggest that you don't consider this situation - where a woman is clearly too drunk to consent to sex, and yet this happens anyway - to be a legitimate rape.

[iup=3595216]Poser[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3595206]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:By the way, on the subject of someone 'not walking drunk', is it not possible that her condition deteriorated after she entered the hotel? I've had nights out where I've stopped drinking but continued to get more intoxicated for a while afterwards, as not all the alcohol I've already had has worked its way through my system yet at the point I stop.

Aye, I was thinking that. You can get home fine and then as soon as your body shuts down, you're basically out for the count. (Not saying that's the case here, just agreeing with Eighty.)

She maintains a claim that her drink had been spiked, although it couldn't have been by either of the accused because they weren't in the club together.

The prosecuting QC said:

Mr Philpotts said: "The prosecution say that she did not truly consent to that activity.

"She was in no fit state to consent.

"And we say that neither man reasonably believed she was consenting."

The case hinged on this very fact, I can understand where Ched Evans was convicted and other lad wasnt also cos of this. I merely relayed a differing opinion, I can't argue with Skarjo as he's resorted to name calling, as has eighthours and to be honest, I find that in itself dispicable as im being labelled as some sort of sex offender. :dread:

I haven't called you a name, what are you talking about?

[iup=3595218]Dan.[/iup] wrote:To bring Photek's daughter - at a future age or otherwise - into the debate is classless and was totally unnecessary, so I can understand why he would take offence to that. However, Photek's points don't seem to have been particularly well-thought-out and have been argued to the extent that I can also understand why people have been offended by them.

Photek, I'd read through your posts in this thread from the beginning again, because while I'm sure you didn't set out to defend Evans or suggest you are in anyway defensive of rape and rape culture, some of your posts suggest that you don't consider this situation - where a woman is clearly too drunk to consent to sex, and yet this happens anyway - to be a legitimate rape.

That wasn't my intention, of course that happens, I mean, obviously, but initial testimony to police usually has an accusation somewhere that they where raped. Its an emotive subject, drink and sex is tricky in some situations. If I came across like I love a good raping then im sorry, I tried to stick to facts, still think the reaction was a bit OTT and strange but fair enough.

[iup=3595218]Dan.[/iup] wrote:To bring Photek's daughter - at a future age or otherwise - into the debate is classless and was totally unnecessary, so I can understand why he would take offence to that. However, Photek's points don't seem to have been particularly well-thought-out and have been argued to the extent that I can also understand why people have been offended by them.

Photek, I'd read through your posts in this thread from the beginning again, because while I'm sure you didn't set out to defend Evans or suggest you are in anyway defensive of rape and rape culture, some of your posts suggest that you don't consider this situation - where a woman is clearly too drunk to consent to sex, and yet this happens anyway - to be a legitimate rape.

Personally I think it oozed class. In seriousness though....his daughter wasn't "brought into this". It was meerly seeing how Photek would see this situation if it wasn't a complete stranger involved. He didn't respond to that though and just continued his baffling comments.

[iup=3595224]Skarjo[/iup] wrote:I haven't called you a name, what are you talking about?

Me neither.

Last edited by Photek on Tue Oct 21, 2014 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I was labelled a Rape Apologist by Skarjo.

Eighty was in agreement with me being called this.

Eighty asked if I was part of Gamergate.

This is one page back lads. Do keep up.

[iup=3595227]SandyCoin[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3595218]Dan.[/iup] wrote:To bring Photek's daughter - at a future age or otherwise - into the debate is classless and was totally unnecessary, so I can understand why he would take offence to that. However, Photek's points don't seem to have been particularly well-thought-out and have been argued to the extent that I can also understand why people have been offended by them.

Photek, I'd read through your posts in this thread from the beginning again, because while I'm sure you didn't set out to defend Evans or suggest you are in anyway defensive of rape and rape culture, some of your posts suggest that you don't consider this situation - where a woman is clearly too drunk to consent to sex, and yet this happens anyway - to be a legitimate rape.

Personally I think it oozed class. In seriousness though....his daughter wasn't "brought into this". It was meerly seeing how Photek would see this situation if it wasn't a complete stranger involved. He didn't respond to that though and just continued his baffling comments.

I didnt see it fit to respond to it as it was emotive and quite simple in the 'stupid' sense of the word.

[iup=3595238]Photek[/iup] wrote:I was labelled a Rape Apologist by Skarjo 1 page back do keep up.

Eighty was in agreement with me being called this.

Eighty asked if I was part of Gamergate.

This is one page back lads. Do keep up.

This is how you started in this thread.

[iup=3595064]Photek[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3595061]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3595054]Photek[/iup] wrote:The crux of the matter here is that she cant remember what happened in the room at all. How can anyone be accused of rape if no evidence is available.

If you're too drunk to remember then you pretty much can't consent. The "but she was drunk" excuse isn't a strawberry floating excuse.

I have a shocking memory when im drunk, if what you're saying is true, then ive been raped a few times.

You're being silly man, not remembering and not consenting are completly different things.

Maybe you worded things badly, but it appears you are saying that you cannot accuse somebody of rape if you cannot remember what happened. That is why people are arguing with you, if that is what you meant then it is a disgusting thing to say.

I'm not saying that at all moggy. I thought I kept expicitly to the case in hand throughout my posts, If I didnt then apologies.

Still think I was harshly treated by a mod and a bluehat though.

I Pm'ed Eighty to ask exactly what he meant in his post an hour ago but he didnt reply, he did post in here though since so he chose not to ignore me, which is always classy of a mod.

[iup=3595242]Photek[/iup] wrote:I'm not saying that at all moggy. I thought I kept expicitly to the case in hand, throughout my posts, If I didnt then apologies.

But that is what you were saying. Read your opening posts again.

[iup=3595064]Photek[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3595061]Fatal Exception[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3595054]Photek[/iup] wrote:The crux of the matter here is that she cant remember what happened in the room at all. How can anyone be accused of rape if no evidence is available.

If you're too drunk to remember then you pretty much can't consent. The "but she was drunk" excuse isn't a strawberry floating excuse.

I have a shocking memory when im drunk, if what you're saying is true, then ive been raped a few times.

You're being silly man, not remembering and not consenting are completly different things.

You say that the crux of the matter is that she cannot remember. You are wrong, the crux of the matter is that Ched Evans had sex with a girl who was so drunk that she couldn’t remember the next day.

You then ask how somebody can be accused of rape if there is no evidence. You are wrong, firstly he was convicted not just accused, secondly he admitted to having sex with her and thirdly the evidence pointed to this girl being out of her face drunk. Doing what Ched Evans did, is a crime and the evidence was all there.

You also say that not remembering and not consenting are different things. You are wrong, the law classes it as rape if you have sex with somebody who is that drunk.

'Rape apologist' is not me calling you a name. 'Rape apologist' is a factual description of your position if you insist on maintaining that the victim's drunken inability to remember the evening constitutes a 'lack of testimony' and represents there being 'literally no evidence' against the accused. See also; victim blaming.

When did I blame the victim? If the law states that if a person consents but is off their face then thats fair enough. The crux of the case is if she was or not.

We are literally going around in circles now. I tried to remain objective rather than emotive and show an alternate view. I'll never ever do that again though cos this place is strawberry floating mental.

Peace out.

Ched Evans - should he play football again?

Who is online

Affiliates