BOF Posted March 23, 2016 Moderator Share Posted March 23, 2016 59 minutes ago, Seat68 said: its one for a different topic but my feeling is, outside of this case as he is a convicted rapist up to this point, but both the victim and and the accused should have complete anonymity. That's the obvious solution. No identity until conviction. Sadly in this horrible age, that's way easier said than done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Judgement delayed until April, with the CPS apparently suggesting that they'll go for a retrial in the event of a quashed conviction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 10 hours ago, StefanAVFC said: I don't really agree with this but the one thing that frustrates me in cases like this is the accused gets his/her name dragged through the mud regardless of whether they're innocent or guilty and the accusee gets anonymity. Makes a massive farce out of disputable cases (not talking about this one) so the victim should be named and shamed in public as if they did something wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 7 hours ago, Zatman said: so the victim should be named and shamed in public as if they did something wrong? I have literally no idea how you inferred that from my post. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 I assume hope that he means that the accused should have the same anonymity as the accuser until they are convicted. As Bri says, that's not really logistically feasible. I'm not sure how much it has to do with our "horrible age" though. Unless we were to say that all rape trials were held in complete secrecy, no public or press access and with complete unaccountability. Which doesn't really sound like a positive road to go down... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 2 minutes ago, ml1dch said: I assume hope that he means that the accused should have the same anonymity as the accuser until they are convicted. I would have thought that was obvious. Combined with liking Seat's post on the matter straight after mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 7 hours ago, Zatman said: so the victim should be named and shamed in public as if they did something wrong? Only if it is proven she lied and Ched Evans went prison innocent. Damn right she should. Seems unlikely though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 58 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: I would have thought that was obvious. Combined with liking Seat's post on the matter straight after mine. Alright, alright - it wasn't a slight, just a good opportunity to use the forum formatting. Either way though, it's still in no way feasible to actually do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Just now, ml1dch said: Alright, alright - it wasn't a slight, just a good opportunity to use the forum formatting. Either way though, it's still in no way feasible to actually do. My curtness wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at 'Mr infer something totally incorrect'. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: My curtness wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at 'Mr infer something totally incorrect'. Gotcha. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 On 10/25/2015 at 03:11, DJ_Villain said: What if he was too drunk to say no? Or is that not how equality works? That is an interesting question. It does make you wonder why in the case where both the man and woman are drunk, only the woman is allowed to claim she was too drunk to give consent. If she can be in a position where her judgement is too impaired, surely the man should be able to make the same claim. An erection cannot be taken as evidence of consent, just as female signs of arousal are not, but public opinion makes a distinction when they assess whether a man gave consent or not and a double-standard definitely exists. Even men who are forced into parenthood are not allowed to claim they did not give consent, even if semen is decanted from a condom, after the act. The concept of being too drunk to give consent, combined with the acceptance that rape can occur within marriage, certainly opens up a can of worms for married couples who get drunk and have sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 6 hours ago, MakemineVanilla said: That is an interesting question. It does make you wonder why in the case where both the man and woman are drunk, only the woman is allowed to claim she was too drunk to give consent. If she can be in a position where her judgement is too impaired, surely the man should be able to make the same claim. An erection cannot be taken as evidence of consent, just as female signs of arousal are not, but public opinion makes a distinction when they assess whether a man gave consent or not and a double-standard definitely exists. Even men who are forced into parenthood are not allowed to claim they did not give consent, even if semen is decanted from a condom, after the act. The concept of being too drunk to give consent, combined with the acceptance that rape can occur within marriage, certainly opens up a can of worms for married couples who get drunk and have sex. This just isn't true. A man can be sexually assaulted when drunk as well. He can claim whatever he wants. It might be difficult to prove he didn't give consent, but it absolutely can be claimed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 11 hours ago, HanoiVillan said: This just isn't true. A man can be sexually assaulted when drunk as well. He can claim whatever he wants. It might be difficult to prove he didn't give consent, but it absolutely can be claimed. So could that theoretically be used as a defence by someone accused of rape? If so, I'm surprised that there hasn't been a highly publicised case of it happening (that I'm aware of). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogso Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Do we know yet how Mcdonald proved he didn't rape the victim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 She went back with Mcdonald, which would have given him a reasonable assumption of consent. Whilst Evans came after the event and coupled with the sucipous behaviour of escaping down a fire escape afterward and what not, did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krisagg75 Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 won his appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted April 21, 2016 Moderator Share Posted April 21, 2016 He's won his appeal and will face a retrial. If it turns out he's innocent he'll have as much right as anyone to dwell on what might have been. He was in great form when he got sent to jail and it's no doubt cost him a promising career. He's innocent until proven guilty (again) and I still think he was foolish to put himself in a position where an accusation could arise to such an extent that he'd get sent down, but you'd have to feel for him if this proves to have been a mistake. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted April 21, 2016 Moderator Share Posted April 21, 2016 I guess we owe him that thread title change too. Maybe those who were trying to have a conversation about the scenario whilst everyone else had their fingers in their ears screaming 'but he's convicted' might be listened to now. Maybe. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Yes always thought that he had a case but I think a lot of people will always see him as guilty of rape no matter what happens in the retrial. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 It will be interesting to see what the fresh evidence is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts