The Guardian’s still remarkable on Ched Evans

The verdict of a jury last Friday that found Ched Evans not guilty of rape appears to be a devastating setback for justice for rape victims. The footballer admits that he had sex with a woman he barely knew, who was drunk, and to whom he addressed not a word. He was convicted by the first jury to try him in 2011. But at his retrial, the jury decided they could not be certain that the woman had not consented, a verdict they reached after they had heard evidence that she had behaved in a similar manner with two other men at around the same time. Everything about this case stinks. A rich young man who on his own admission behaved in a way that most people would find unacceptable is found not guilty, while his victim, a young woman who was only 19 at the time, has had to move house five times, change her identity twice after Twitter trolls outed her on social media, and now has her alleged sexual history spread over the tabloids.

You what?

“A rich young man who on his own admission behaved in a way that most people would find unacceptable is found not guilty”

He was charged with rape not unacceptable behaviour. And what in buggery does his financial situation have to do with it?

It is true that not all the evidence that Mr Evans’ legal team finally won on was available at the first trial. A subsequent appeal against conviction was dismissed. Only after a new legal team was employed was the original evidence reconsidered and the witnesses re-interviewed. A new defence was presented to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The court of appeal considered the new evidence and decided that it met the condition of “similar fact”: that meant there could be a retrial, and the new evidence of sexual behaviour could be introduced. Explaining her reasons, Lady Justice Hallett admitted she did so with “a considerable degree of hesitation”.

Missed the bit where the conviction was quashed, didn’t they?

70 thoughts on “The Guardian’s still remarkable on Ched Evans”

  1. “… his victim”

    His what? He was acquitted.

    Defamation lawyers! Defamation lawyers! Somebody get me my defamation lawyers!

  2. His behaviour is unacceptable but hers was just a strong confident independent young woman exercising her right to sleep with as many men as she can.

  3. What do you expect from CM scum like the Gladrag?

    If someone with a knife and ski mask attacks then the woman’s sexual history is irrelevant and should not be raised.

    In “he said/she said” cases like this–or “he said/the CM PC pricks at the CPS said” since the lady never claimed she was raped–then the sex habits of the accuser do matter. Evans did no more than several others have done—none of whom the lady objected to. Nor did she object to Evens. The Marxian scum at the CPS did the objecting.

    The sooner the Gladrag is out of business the better.

  4. His behaviour is unacceptable but hers was just a strong confident independent young woman exercising her right to sleep with as many men as she can.

    This wouldn’t be so tragic were it not what older feminists are brainwashing young women with. They don’t tell them they’ll rapidly become damaged goods and incapable of a normal, functioning relationship because the feminists refuse to believe it anyway. Who, other than somebody with zero self-respect or someone who couldn’t give a shit, would want this woman to be the mother of their kids even had the whole rape case not gone ahead?

  5. It seems TPTB are determined to fuck this woman’s life to the maximum extent. Can’t understand why they don’t just leave it alone now.

  6. “This wouldn’t be so tragic were it not what older feminists are brainwashing young women with. They don’t tell them they’ll rapidly become damaged goods and incapable of a normal, functioning relationship because the feminists refuse to believe it anyway. Who, other than somebody with zero self-respect or someone who couldn’t give a shit, would want this woman to be the mother of their kids even had the whole rape case not gone ahead?”

    You are absolutely right.

    They seem to think that it is viable to advise young women to sleep with as many people as possible, “on their own terms”, (hopefully getting a couple of micro-aggressive guys convicted of rape), then settle down to life in some kind of comfortable tax supported metro job with an ultra beta male who will work hard to raise the kids that might not be his and accept his cuckold role whenever required.

    It might work for the 0.5% of insane harpies from privileged backgrounds who end up writing for the Guardian or similar, but it just isn’t viable for average women with normal belief systems living in normal society and having relationships with normal men. It is in fact a very dangerous lie which must seem seductive to the young because of how loudly they shout it.

  7. Tim Newman

    Spot on. Radical Feminism has much to answer for. A murderous creed, It has created more victims and damaged society more deeply than almost any other ideology…..

  8. It’s funny. Actual lawyers (from what I’ve seen) have patiently explained that most of the points raised in this article are inaccurate. To my knowledge Barbara Ellen and whoever wrote this editorial are not legal experts. Possibly a lawyer has read these articles over to make sure they’re not actionable.

    But these are the same people who in other contexts insist that they “trust the experts” and base their beliefs on evidence. God I hate the Graun.

  9. Oh God… I’m turning into mr ecks. As soon as I read it, I the only way to understand the emphasis on his money and her age is cm.

  10. “It seems TPTB are determined to fuck this woman’s life to the maximum extent. Can’t understand why they don’t just leave it alone now.”

    Because this young woman is the stick they need to beat Ched Evans and other blokes like him. And boy are they ever going to flog this to death.

  11. The reason for mentioning the relative wealth is to create an emotional response in the cretinous average Guardian reader, who thinks the law should apply differently to selected people depending on the circumstances.

  12. I don’t think the average Guardian reader does think that, judging from the responses when the Graun doesn’t no platform reality.

    The Guardian has gone for American style identitarianism but hasn’t necessarily taken all its readers with it. Which is interesting.

  13. The Inimitable Steve

    Why has the media decided to ruin Ched Evans’ life? Is it cos he is white?

    His sex life is disgusting. So is Clayton McDonald’s. But no ginned-up media outrage against him.

    Just yesterday the Mail reported on yet another gang of Mohammedan child rapists in Rotherham. I mean, whodathunk it, right?

    You’d think that might be more newsworthy than going on and on and on about the same case of a chav footballer’s minging menage a trois with another chav footballer and a slapper, but nah.

    Ched is our Brock Turner. Turner is the only convicted rapist the US media thinks is worthy of sustained national coverage, because he’s a white guy and thus fits the evil white patriarchy rape culture narrative.

    The much greater incidence of rape by brown guys isn’t news. The media must have its Great White Defendant.

  14. Back in the Eighties, when she was making herself famous, Madonna told girls to just do what they want and enjoy themselves and have as much sex as they wanted with as many different partners as they felt like. Hedonism, woohoo. Fast-forward fifteen years, and she’s claiming in interviews about her motherhood that she’s never changed a nappy in her life. She has people for that sort of thing.

    How many of the girls who followed her advice can afford nannies?

  15. Steve,

    Yeah, he ticks all the right boxes. He’s white, rich, footballer (so, knuckle dragger rather than a Guardian type).

    You’d think these wimmin would be going after cinema chains showing anything by Polanski, a man who gave a 13 year old champagne and quaaludes before raping and sodomising her, but not a word. Almost no-one kicked up a fuss when he was recently freed by Swiss police despite an outstanding US arrest warrant.

  16. > Polanski

    Oh, don’t get me started. My mum kept nagging me to watch The Ghost because it’s so brilliant. I said I had no doubt it was brilliant because Polanski’s a superb director, but I wouldn’t watch it because I won’t knowingly fund a predatory paedophile. Cue unhinged (and inaccurate) ranting about the age of consent in various US states at the time. And she keeps bringing up Jerry Lee Lewis for some reason. Me: “Why are you talking about the age of consent? His victim didn’t consent. She kept saying no, repeatedly. If she’d been thirty, it’d still be rape. I thought you were a feminist?”

    The woman wouldn’t buy anything from South Africa in the Eighties, won’t buy anything from Israel, and no doubt has a long right-on list of other things she won’t give money to, and paedophiles and rapists aren’t on it. Not if they make a film attacking Blair, anyway.

  17. TIS: “Just yesterday the Mail reported on yet another gang of Mohammedan child rapists in Rotherham. I mean, whodathunk it, right?”

    Reading the Southend ‘Echo’ going to work this morning, and guess what? We’ve had one here too…

  18. It is in fact a very dangerous lie which must seem seductive to the young because of how loudly they shout it.

    I’m actually writing a book which is partly about this. There’s a shitload of stuff which I believe isn’t being said, and I think I can say it well.

  19. “Why has the media decided to ruin Ched Evans’ life? Is it cos he is white?”

    Of course they wish to destroy Ched Evans because he looks like the Sun reader demographic, which is the enemy, and he doesn’t look like an inconvenient rapey minority group member which we should all be sweeping under the carpet and pretending doesn’t exist.

    What happened to Ched Evans is awful but he is lucky in that he has the support of his girlfriend and her father and can afford a decent lawyer and get reasonable advice.

    I think the worst thing is they way this woman is being used in order to keep on attacking Ched Evans. She has been relocated somewhere and had her ID changed. I guess quite traumatic for someone of probably average to low intelligence without much in the way of career prospects to be completely separated from friends and family in a strange town. I guess also quite confusing and damaging to have constant contact attempts from Guardian journos whispering nonsense in her ear, and to see the whole thing constatly re-hashed in the media. They don’t give a crap about her in reality.

  20. Of course, I wasn’t there in court to here all the evidence and I wasn’t there in the hotel bedroom (although you’d think a lot of Guardian journalists were as they KNOW what happened).

    But it always seemed odd to me that two men who were never accused of rape by their alleged victim who could offer no evidence against them should be charged with rape and that one of them is found innocent and the other guilty.

  21. iSteve said:

    “Ched is our Brock Turner. Turner is the only convicted rapist the US media thinks is worthy of sustained national coverage, because he’s a white guy and thus fits the evil white patriarchy rape culture narrative.”

    As far as I can tell from the media reports, all Brock Turner did was put his hands down the girl’s pants. Admittedly unpleasant, but hardly in the mahound class.

  22. The woman wouldn’t buy anything from South Africa in the Eighties,

    probably for the same reason I won’t buy Outspan oranges. All those nasty black hands all over ’em.

  23. Evans broke into a hotel room where the women, whom he’d never met, was in bed, and had sex with her.

    The jury at the retrial found that he had a reasonable belief that she consented to it. OK, I wasn’t at the trial, I won’t argue with that. But let’s not pretend he did nothing wrong.

    It seems to me that I should be able to go to sleep in my own bed without the risk of waking up to find that a stranger has come into the room and induced me to have sex with them while I’m barely conscious. The same applies if I’m in my hotel room. And even if I’m in someone else’s hotel room. And even if I’d consciously agreed to have sex with that someone else.

    Apparently, the law now disagrees.

    But it always seemed odd to me .. that one of them is found innocent and the other guilty.
    The one whose hotel room she went to was found innocent. The one who broke into the room was found guilty. I see nothing odd about it.

    As far as I can tell from the media reports, all Brock Turner did was put his hands down the girl’s pants.
    The medical report said that the victim suffered penetrative trauma.

  24. SJW–She went willingly with one bloke and he invited Evens in. She had no idea what had gone on but frequently puts herself in that state by choice. What constitutes consent? Choosing to put yourself in a state where you don’t know what the fuck you are doing constitutes an acceptance of anything that might happen as far as I am concerned. Stupidity invites disaster.

    Also she was effectively silent about what was going on. She was able to say neither yes or no through her choice to put herself in that state. If you are sleeping there is no invitation to treat there–you are sleeping neither inviting or refusing sex antics. Drunk/drugged and on the pull –which she clearly was–she is putting herself , silenced so to speak, in circs where she would need to consent or refuse.

    Evans is not a nice man. But he escapes being a rapist.

  25. Evans broke into a hotel room where the women, whom he’d never met, was in bed, and had sex with her.

    Can you supply a link to support this? I haven’t seen anywhere that he (a) broke into anywhere or (b) more than one woman was involved.

  26. SJW: “It seems to me that I should be able to go to sleep in my own bed without the risk of waking up to find that a stranger has come into the room and induced me to have sex with them while I’m barely conscious. “

    I think you’re quite safe.

  27. As I’ve said before, this stuff would be so much easier to punish if extramarital and premarital sex were not allowed — either illegal or, as they used to be, so severely frowned upon that they might as well have been. I’m not advocating a return to that — but then I recognise that things have both pros and cons. The Guardian and their ilk are the ones who campaigned hard for the sexual revolution, and now they’re upset at the results.

    We can talk endlessly about how awful the behaviours of both Ched Evans and the woman are — and they are — but the fact is that it is now fairly normal. Every day, women decide to get involved in this kind of degrading sex, and they apparently enjoy it, and don’t go to court. Every day, men see an acquaintance having sex and just casually join in, and don’t end up in court. You want a jury to convict, you need this to be weird and abnormal. It isn’t. This is the world The Guardian hath wrought. You’d think they’d be proud.

  28. @ JuliaM.

    +1 🙂

    @ Rob. I agree. I can’t remember any mention of a break-in. Perhaps SJW has a recurring fantasy regarding break-ins and sex and has got confused?

  29. @ SJW “The one whose hotel room she went to was found innocent. The one who broke into the room was found guilty. I see nothing odd about it.”

    I thought the prosecution case was that she was too drunk to consent?

    I personally can’t remember getting drunker whilst I had sex although I can recall sobering up during it.

    If you believe that she was barely conscious why would it make a difference where it happened?

    Or are you saying it was the slammin’ she was getting by the wholly innocent Clayton the cause of her near-unconsciousness?

    And as repeated many times, she never said she was raped. She never said she was nearly unconscious. That’s you saying that – despite not being there.

  30. @ SJW
    Minor factual point – the case was pursued because it was Ched Evans’ hotel room to which he, naturally, had a key.
    The trial was not about his morals but whether he had raped a girl who had not accused him of rape.

  31. john77, indeed?. I was going to ask how it was that he broke in without kicking down the door and raising Cain.

    SJW, the law hasn’t changed. It does not now disagree with you. It’s what it has been for years. And the jury was disinclined to convict on the basis of his tawdry tastes.

  32. Well personally I’m all in favour of good looking birds having sex with comparative strangers although less so nowadays as its unlikely to be with me, but still…

    But I do object to risking being accused of rape, not by the recipient of my tender affections but by some bewigged cunt who works for the government an dthen have cm scum (thank you Ecksy) pursue me for the rest of my life, after having a) served a sentence and then b) having been found not guilty.

    Fuck right off. Right now.

  33. With the recent descent of the Torygraph I’d been thinking of giving it up; top news story is about a TV program for example.

    Having seen the crap they allowed as comment at the weekend I’m now weaned off.

    Evans should be able to make up his lost earnings quite handily from these eejits.

    Anyone got an opinion on whether he’s going to be able to make a claim against the CPS for his lost time and earnings?

    Just a last thought; these things get way easier to interpret if you frop the idea that all women are angels who’ve handed in their wings for the duration and all men are thugs, just a thought…

  34. Gareth, I don’t think he’ll get anything from the CPS. The fact that the trial proceeded beyond the close of the prosecution case and was left to the jury to decide means that there was an allegation capable of being heard. That he’s been acquitted merely lands him in the same boat as many others.

    Similarly plenty of people spend months on remand awaiting trial, only to be acquitted. And that’s that, they’ve no recourse (unless it turns out the police fitted them up, for instance).

  35. Minor factual point – the case was pursued because it was Ched Evans’ hotel room to which he, naturally, had a key.

    That’s wrong. It was McDonald’s hotel room, albeit Evans had paid for it. Evans lied to the receptionist to get a keycard, saying that McDonald wasn’t using the room.

    If you get hold of a key by fraud, and use it to enter the room without knocking, that’s breaking in.

    Can you supply a link to support this?
    Reports are unanimous. Here‘s one.

  36. This from Milton Jones amuses:
    “Militant feminists, I take my hat off to them, they don’t like that.”

  37. Breaking in, SJW? Not really. Trespassing, having lied to gain entry, perhaps. I might agree it was breaking in had the occupant(s) been asleep, but he knew that was not the case.

    “It seems to me that I should be able to go to sleep in my own bed without the risk of waking up to find that a stranger has come into the room and induced me to have sex with them while I’m barely conscious. The same applies if I’m in my hotel room. And even if I’m in someone else’s hotel room. And even if I’d consciously agreed to have sex with that someone else.”

    And isn’t there a lot of bait and switch in that remark? AFAIK, she did not wake up to find him having sex with her.

    You seem to think, SJW, that because you think he’s done something wrong, the law should not disagree with you that he ought to have been convicted of rape.

    FWIW, I think his behaviour to his girlfriend was morally wrong and his participation in this sordid menage was icky. Further, the trick he played on the receptionist was disreputable as well as dishonest. But these things were all before the jury, which acquitted him. Distaste for the man does not justify references to his “victim” as if he’d been convicted. Nor does it justify – and this is what really antagonises most commenters here – the use of this single case further to advance the law on rape by disadvantaging the interest of male defendants to a fair trial. And as I pointed out a couple of days ago, the new evidence of the other men, may well have come to light at the first trial had the girl not been granted anonymity.

    As a final word, since he has been acquitted, the worst that can be said of him I have already said. And for that, the complainant who never was, has been subjected to years of this process. Under its remit, the CPS would have had no real choice in this. Better by far, surely, to allow her to complain of a rape then prosecute. The inhumanity of the process by which she is suborned to ‘the public interest’ in prosecuting him has ended up treating every bit as much as a piece of meat as she was in that menage.

  38. We are a long, long way from the Left’s favourite slogan about crime from decades ago: “Better ten guilty men go free than an innocent be convicted”.

    I’m starting to doubt their sincerity.

  39. SJW:-

    “The jury at the retrial found that he had a reasonable belief that she consented to it. OK, I wasn’t at the trial, I won’t argue with that. But let’s not pretend he did nothing wrong.”

    OK, fine, let’s not pretend he did nothing wrong. But, remembering he did do nothing illegal, if we’re going to claim our opinion and value system as the basis for our discussion and set ourselves as moral arbiter (and you surely have here) then let’s turn our eyes to the woman and apply our uncontestable moral standards to her as well. Applying those same standards it would seem that she is a complete slag and she, every bit as much as he, deserves to lose all her career prospects, any earning potential she might have, her fair-weather friends and the good opinion of decent folk (and guardianista harpies) just as he has.

    Now, do we feel good about ourselves and our certainties do we?

  40. ” I think his behaviour to his girlfriend was morally wrong ”

    Said of course, knowing nothing about the intimate dynamics of their relationship, ahem …

  41. SJW “If you get hold of a key by fraud, and use it to enter the room without knocking, that’s breaking in.”

    Is it? It’s trespass but I doubt it is “breaking in”. Not least because I don’t think “breaking in” is a crime. Criminal damage is and so is burglary – and that would include gaining entry by deception with intent to commit certain categories of crime.

    But gaining entry by deception to join in a willing threesome is not burglary or ‘breaking in’.

    You could just add it to your list of “things I disapprove of which ought to be crimes or lead to an automatic guilty verdict”

  42. Evans was also invited to the room to take part
    Not by the woman he wasn’t. If he’d knocked on the door, and she’d invited him into the room and to bed, the case would be rather different.

    remembering he did do nothing illegal
    remembering he did nothing proven beyond the reasonable doubt of a jury to be illegal

    if we’re going to … set ourselves as moral arbiter… then let’s turn our eyes to the woman and apply our uncontestable moral standards to her as well

    OK. My moral standards say that one should be sure that one’s sexual encounters are fully consensual. Uncontestably, Evans was extremely careless about it. But I can’t see that she did anything blameworthy in that respect.

    You seem to think, SJW, that because you think he’s done something wrong, the law should not disagree with you that he ought to have been convicted of rape.
    I think the law should set a very high bar for a reasonable belief that a person is consenting to sex when you’ve stolen into their bedroom at night.

  43. @SJW

    It wasn’t her bedroom.

    It may have been Evans’. He paid for it

    It may have been t’other chaps, as it was his name on the register.

    It definitely wasn’t hers, though.

  44. SJW, I don’t claim extensive personal experience of the dynamics of these things, but your approach seems to me to be that of a sniffy dowager overcome with the vapours at the news that Clarissa danced with a man whose name was not marked on her card.

    Putting aside the charms or demerits of promiscuous, casual sex between young, randy people who care not that the other smells of kebab, sick and booze, we are talking about young, randy, boozed-up men and women.

    So there’s a girl with her mouth full, so cannot speak. Needs her hands to balance on. Is she going to provide a Craigslist post seeking company? Or sign a waiver? Maybe have her father offer him a glass of whisky, over which he’ll enquire whether Evans’ intentions towards his daughter are strictly honourable?

    I’ve tried to avoid smearing this girl. Partly because what she does with her own life is up to her, partly (largely?) because she did not make this prosecution occur – she’s a pawn, and for that alone she has my sympathy. But on any view she allowed herself to go to the hotel room of a stranger who picked her out of the gutter, who did to her nothing she did not want, and the intervention of the third man cannot be shown to the criminal standard in any way to have contravened her interests. Indeed, left to her own devices it sounds as though she would have nothing to do with this prosecution.

    And what if she actually enjoyed it? What if, mirabile dictum, Evans’ intervention was so far as she was concerned just what the doctor ordered? What if she liked a little mystery, a bit of a surprise to the whole thing? Well, whatever floats your boat. But your demand that he gets everything signed in triplicate before telling her to brace herself just might deprive her of something she wanted at the time.

    Three final points:

    1. “remembering he did nothing proven beyond the reasonable doubt of a jury to be illegal”. This is cant, and you know it.

    2. “I think the law should set a very high bar for a reasonable belief that a person is consenting to sex …”. Higher than so the jury is ‘sure’?

    3. “… when you’ve stolen into their bedroom at night”. Not broken in, then. And it was not her bedroom. She was not sleeping. Forgive me, but like Wodehouse, it’s almost as if you think beds are places for hiding under.

  45. SJW is a beta male white knight who thinks that defending women will get them to sleep with him. The idea that women like being fucked by cads and in all probability this women would fuck Evans again if given the chance, is beyond his comprehension.

  46. @SJW so a VERY HIGH bar for REASONABLE belief?

    Doesn’t a reasonably high bar sound better?

    Or how about a low bar for a very high belief?

    Ah. So he didn’t break in after all? He ‘stole in’ which you know because you were there?

  47. Bloke in Costa Rica

    remembering he did do nothing illegal
    remembering he did nothing proven beyond the reasonable doubt of a jury to be illegal”

    Oh do fuck off. I mean, I suppose it would be a bit of a stretch to prove in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt that you have sex with small boys, but that shouldn’t be a barrier to dragging your name through the mud and costing you your career and liberty.

  48. SJW

    So you do indeed claim the right to be a moral arbiter. You are also conspicuously silent on the girl’s behaviour. That isn’t surprising I’m afraid; SJW’s can to all imtents and purposes be defined by their double standards.

    Yoy will also, being a reader of this blog, be very well aware that I and a few others aren’t shy in passing moral judgement on you. Your double standards will of course allow you to be outraged by that.

  49. SJW

    As I understand it the new evidence in the case was that the girl was shown to have exhibited ‘similar behaviour’ in the recent past, i.e. consented to exactly the sort of inebriated (barely conscious) group sex the prosecution alleged she and no female would ever consent to. Adopting the role of moral arbiter – and thank you for allowing us the liberty – I condemn her for that.

    God my self-righteousness feels good; now I know how good it feels to be an SJW.

  50. @Ironman

    I find your morality ever so slightly different from mine.

    I condemn you to hell and lie back as a torrent of self righteous baby batter explodes all over the keyboard.

    And my slutty girlfriend licks it all off while I spank her. Cause she loves it.

  51. @ SJW
    Your reference does *not* say that it wasn’t Evans’ room. It says that he lied to the receptionist but the receptionist would have been breaking all sorts of rules if he/she had given Evans the key to a room that wasn’t his.
    Maybe in your neck of the woods straight men never share a twin-bedded hotel room, but where I come from working-class guys don’t worry about that.
    Using a key is not breaking in – it doesn’t break anything. One of the most annoying thing about lefties is they insist on their divine right to change the meaning of words at no seconds’ notice.

  52. @ SJW
    P.S.
    There is a criminal offence called “breaking and entering”, which is what it says – breaking a door or window and thereby entering premises that do not belong to you. Evans was not charged with this crime. I wonder why? Perhaps because he had not committed it?

  53. “Evans broke into a hotel room where the women, whom he’d never met, was in bed, and had sex with her.”

    So glad SJW has all the fact on this case that the court obviously did not

  54. your approach seems to me to be that of a sniffy dowager overcome with the vapours at the news that Clarissa danced with a man whose name was not marked on her card.

    Bwahahahaha!

    Forgive me, but like Wodehouse, it’s almost as if you think beds are places for hiding under.

    Ditto.

  55. There is a criminal offence called “breaking and entering”, which is what it says – breaking a door or window and thereby entering premises that do not belong to you. Evans was not charged with this crime. I wonder why? Perhaps because he had not committed it?

    John, why make stuff up? “Breaking” in this context doesn’t have to involve physical damage to anything – “entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization.” says the first legal hit I googled. (It’s not in itself a criminal offence.)

    You all seem anxious to quibble about the exact meaning of “break-in” rather than to consider the actual point, which is, I repeat, that a reasonable belief that a person is consenting to sex with you is much more easily formed if they freely go bed with you than if you steal into the room they’re in.

  56. SJW

    And still unwilling to comment on the girl’s conduct are we?

    So your contribution to this post is in essence to denounce another man’s behaviour and invite others to do the same. Your attempt to wrap it up in a greater piety is pitiful.

  57. Andrew C

    Last night I was playing family man and was disgusted by her. Today I quite fancy getting her number.

    I’ll join you in hell.

  58. SJW,

    > a reasonable belief that a person is consenting to sex with you is much more easily formed if they freely go bed with you than if you steal into the room they’re in.

    You’re assuming everyone’s life is like yours. People do this stuff. I find it distasteful and wouldn’t want any part of it myself. But I don’t assume everyone’s life is like mine.

    I don’t know Ched Evans. I have a low opinion of footballers and their morals. But the evidence presented to the court indicates that the girl shouted “Fuck me harder!” even if she can’t remember it. Perhaps, had she shouted “Stop!” he’d’ve stopped and said “Oh my God, I’m so terribly sorry. I have disastrously misread this situation. Please allow me to make it up to you in some way.” And perhaps not. Either way, it’s a hypothetical.

  59. @ SJW
    The first search hit I found states that it *is* a criminal offence. which is why we used to read reports of individuals being charged with “breaking and entering” as being easier to prover than “attempted burglary”.

  60. @SJW “You all seem anxious to quibble about the exact meaning of “break-in” rather than to consider the actual point”

    So, you say he “broke in” then when we point out he didn’t you say we are quibbling. So if I said she tied him up and forced him at gunpoint to have sex with her, you’d be quibbling if you pointed out that she didn’t?

    And you continue to use the emotive word ‘steal’ to describe his entry into the room. OK, maybe he didn’t knock but what would you have him do? Arrange for a escort of trumpeters to announce his entry and enter the room mounted on an elephant? He used the key and opened the door. Ever done that yourself? Were you stealing into the room?

    Besides, are you saying that if…..ooh, I dunno, in my fantasy it might be Pamela Anderson in her prime (but in your case, let’s say Mary Whitehouse) were to quietly creep into a room while you were shagging someone and asked if they could join in, you’d say “No, you did not enter the room in the morally approved fashion and so I will forgo your carnal pleasures”?

    You seem to think every women is and every man out to be on the verge of joining Holy Orders.

  61. And still unwilling to comment on the girl’s conduct are we?
    You’re willing to comment on it, I’m not. UK law concerns itself with consent, not chastity. I agree with that.

    This is a broadly libertarian forum, where the consensus is that people’s lifestyle choices are their own concern, so long as they don’t harm anyone else.

  62. SJW, “UK law concerns itself with consent, not chastity. I agree with that.”

    More straw men, false flags, false dichotomies, or mere tendentious use of language: her chastity was not an issue, the specific wantonness he described was. And even if chastity was the issue, it’s not inconceivable it would give rise to similar fact evidence bolstering his, or any other man’s defence. In other words, chastity, or wantonness can inform a jury’s deliberations on consent. Plus, I thought you did not agree with the law, on the basis that it no longer agrees with you …

    “so long as they don’t harm anyone else”

    Aside from her callous use by a state-sponsored prosecution, what harm has she suffered?

    The point is, he was acquitted. He is not guilty. Like it, don’t like it, up to you. But them’s the rules. And since you resile from directly accusing him of rape, I’m driven to the conclusion that you wanted him to be convicted on the grounds of his being a cad.

    On acquittal, we don’t go behind the jury’s verdict*. You might want to ponder the ramifications of that principle.

    *Yes, I’m aware the 2003 Act created exceptions.

  63. > This is a broadly libertarian forum, where the consensus is that people’s lifestyle choices are their own concern, so long as they don’t harm anyone else.

    Does two years in prison count as harm?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *