No it isn't

Yes that'll do for me.

Not my point, at the moment. My point is about playing the man and not the ball.
As in 'you're over-reacting and are on an outrage bus' to belittle someone's point of view.

I'm not belittling Diane, I'm debating.

Well, whatever you call it, you play the man (or woman) and not the ball. Your opponents are on outrage buses or they have only rudimentary grasp of the law or they are rampant feminists with an axe to grind.

Anyway, I'll say my final position....I agree with you that different people have different lifestyles and different sexual practices. It's, I suppose, possible that this woman did want casual sex with a succession of sleazy men and, further, didn't mind them photographing her with doing that.

But if she did want that, certainly at her age, I'd say there was some sort of abuse background, or vulnerability going on with her. What if she's of extremely low intelligence, for example? Did Evans even want to consider that? If people want to swing (or whatever), they make sure their partners are fully aware and fully agree with the proceedings.

If men want to do what Evans did, in complete ignorance of the woman's situation and state of mind, and not even caring to try to find out, it's totally wrong. If his imprisonment on a rape charge means other men think twice about doing the same thing, that's perfectly fine with me.

Unfortunately for your line of reasoning, the law isn't there to make examples of overpaid footballers devoid of personal morality, nor to be an unjustified extra source of income for a female office worker.

Every case should be tried on its individual merits, not to provide 'examples,' otherwise God help any man or woman falsely accused of a crime.

If Evans' appeal is successful that's the end of it - he will no doubt seek some redress for wrongful imprisonment and loss of earnings. If it's unsuccessful I hope to never hear Evans' name again.

Are all her friends freeloaders? Plenty of them about like...

But then, my line of reasoning wasn't either that the law should make examples of ched-like footballers, or that it should provide an extra source of income for clerical officers.

What I did say is that Evans couldn't have cared less about the possible vulnerability of the woman involved, a fact which you don't seem to think significant. Another thing I'll say is that if men think it's OK to behave like this, to turn up and fuck someone they've never seen before, without any regard for damage done, then a possible rape charge might make them think again.

A few points from my reading on this case:

The woman did not claim to be raped, she reported a missing handbag.

Cheds own testimony to the police led to them pursuing a rape case.

Ched did not go back to a room with her he turned up later and forced himself in univited.

Not sure what articles some on here are reading to base their cry rape allegations. If an injustice has occurred surely the police are more culpable.

To cut a long story short just get him signed up because someone will and reap the rewards that goals bring.

Didn't the last Ched Evans thread reach 10 pages or more. I doubt we would sign him weather he gets the conviction overturned or not

It's the same egos as last time and still nobody Knwos what happened because they weren't there. Nobody knows what she thought, nobody knows what ched thought.

Another embarrassing read

No-one is talking about what he or she thought. We are discussing hypotheticals and abstruse points of law
Now run along and mind your own business.

^
That

This subject has been done to death on here but there's been some really good posts on this thread.

I think the full case should be provided as reading material for every 16 year old kid who signs for a club on a daft money before he's done or proven anything. Money does not entitle you to do whatever you want to whoever you want, and you are not untouchable, so behave like a proper decent human being and you'll probably be alright. This 'roasting' culture from groups of, predominately thick, young professional footballers is exactly the monster that has been created in English football.

Evans was playing in League One when he got sent down, he was still being paid for part of his sentence £18,000 a week by Sheffield United. Fuck knows what Manchester City were paying before that before he'd achieved anything in the game.

His name should be metaphor for what is wrong with football in this country without even going into the sordid details of the case.

Of course you are. The top and bottom of it is he thinks she agreed to sex and she thinks she said no. 1 is correct and 1 isn't. Nobody on this board knows who is correct and this has already been discussed. Read chips version it's realy funny how he words it Using phrases like classy guy which is the most ironic comment on this thread, is she a classy girl?? Iv seen the cctv like everyone else and she isn't drunk were she is completely gone. Never understood the part were ched got his mates to film. Why would he want footage of him cheating. Didn't add up to me then and still dosnt. Hes a grade a Kunt there is no denying that on and off the field. Just for cheating he deserved some of what's happened but as nobody was there and nobody knows who is telling the truth and this has already had a 10 page thread can this not be locked.

There isn't a hope in hell he'd sign for pools anyway making it even more pointless.

You have more or less just said what I said last night. We have been down this route before 10 pages of it and what's to say he would even want to sign for pools even if a contract was offered.
Time to put the subject to rest now I reckon

Pools playing today?

Of course you are. The top and bottom of it is he thinks she agreed to sex and she thinks she said no. 1 is correct and 1 isn't. Nobody on this board knows who is correct and this has already been discussed. Read chips version it's realy funny how he words it Using phrases like classy guy which is the most ironic comment on this thread, is she a classy girl?? Iv seen the cctv like everyone else and she isn't drunk were she is completely gone. Never understood the part were ched got his mates to film. Why would he want footage of him cheating. Didn't add up to me then and still dosnt. Hes a grade a Kunt there is no denying that on and off the field. Just for cheating he deserved some of what's happened but as nobody was there and nobody knows who is telling the truth and this has already had a 10 page thread can this not be locked.

There isn't a hope in hell he'd sign for pools anyway making it even more pointless.[/quote]

We're not really talking about hypotheticals and abstruse points of law, Ritchie.
That was just, like, a joke.
On the other hand, the subject is confined to one thread with a very obvious heading. If you're sick of it, scroll down.

Apart from anything else, airing discussion might held young lads think more about the consequences of their actions.

The problem with this thread is that some, me included, are looking at it from a purely legal perspective and others are bringing morals into it.

I never said that I want to be best mates with Evans or that he is a nice guy and would be welcome to date my daughter. Absolutely not. But thats a long way from whether the conviction is safe or not.

Isn't that the on-going problem with rape cases though? For years defence teams could get a result for their clients by establishing that the woman in the case had a poor reputation. Go back a few decades and that pretty much meant that she wasn't a virgin or had been drinking. There was a case when a high court judge invented the idea of contributory negligence to justify being very lenient on a rapist. His theory was that by hitching a lift she was inviting rape.

Nowadays the law is supposed to hinge entirely on whether consent was given but the people campaigning for Evans seem to be keen to get back to the old approach of attacking his victim's character/reputation.

In a nutshell, the issue is whether the young woman consented or not. The jury presumably heard all the evidence, and decided she didn't consent, by the legal definition of the word.

As the last sentence (below) says, it is for the jury to decide whether the accused person's belief in in consent was reasonable. They presumably decided either that it wasn't reasonable, or that consent wasn't given at all. There's nothing to support your view that procedure wasn't carried out or that the verdict is unsafe.

From The Sexual Offences act 2003:

Reasonable belief in consent

Deciding whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps (A) has taken to ascertain whether (B) consents (subsection (2) of sections 1-4). It is likely that this will include a defendant's attributes, such as disability or extreme youth, but not if (s)he has any particular fetishes.

The Act abolished the Morgan defence of a genuine though unreasonably mistaken belief as to the consent of the complainant. The defendant (A) has the responsibility to ensure that (B) consents to the sexual activity at the time in question. It will be important for the police to ask the offender in interview what steps (s)he took to satisfy him or herself that the complainant consented in order to show his or her state of mind at the time.

The test of reasonable belief is a subjective test with an objective element. The best way of dealing with this issue is to ask two questions:
1.Did the defendant believe the complainant consented? This relates to his or her personal capacity to evaluate consent (the subjective element of the test).

2.If so, did the defendant reasonably believe it? It will be for the jury to decide if his or her belief was reasonable (the objective element).

And, that, Mr B, is where you are plain wrong. His belief that she agreed had to be reasonable; it's not enough to believe she consented. I've not taken much interest in the case (celebrity BS doesn't interest me) but reading this thread makes me think that even if he did believe she consented, that belief was not reasonable.

That's a very dangerous way to think about it. I thought we got rid of that sort of thinking about rape and sexual assault in the 1970s. The next step is to say she deserved it.

Ah, I see that you've made my point much more eloquently!