Charlie Webster

[Tsunami]

I'll answer. I always thought rape was grabbing someone and forcing them to have sex. I thought it meant physical violence. I think thats the stereotype, thats the person who I think we all agree should be locked away, once hes had his man parts removed with a rust knife.

 

Rape can simply be having sex with someone who didn't give consent. It doesn't mean they wouldn't have given consent, just they didn't give it. Share a bed with a loved one and in the middle of the night you grab hold of a boob or a penis (hopefully not both!!) then thats sexual assault. Even if you have agreed before hand to do it, you were asleep and legally under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 75 (2) (d) you have broken the law.

 

Where it gets a little difficult is it's only rape IF you reasonably believe they didn't consent. And this is where I think Ched Evans is being wronged. He says he didnt do anything wrong, now as the law states he has to believe he has done wrong, as soon as he says he doesn't think he did, he's not guilty. It's also impossible to EVER know what went on in that room unless you were one of the 3 people in there so how anyone can find someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt I don't know. Especially as the girl herself never complained to the police about being raped, the police told her she had been raped!

So as long as the girl didn't know she had been raped it was alright according to you. FFS.

[SCB]

Even if he maintains it wasn't rape the way he actually treated and behaved towards the girl was vile and disgusting and he should show remorse for that alone....he really is a loathsome individual regardless of the outcome of the case

Are you kidding? Two people having sex is not "vile and disgusting" it's 2014 now, not 1914, we've moved on, people have sex all the time without being in a relationship and having only met them hours earlier. Some people go out dogging and have sex with people they have literally just met. Two drunk people meting and having sex doesn't make 1 or the other vile or deplorable.

 

When is she going to say sorry to McDonald and his family ? after all he was found not guilty ..No doubt her family have said plenty of bad things about him all the internet as well but I doubt we are to see her say saying sorry .

Exactly. It seems it's ok to acuse someone or rape and risk having them thrown in prison for 3-10 years and then not allow them to ever work again. She DID accuse him of rape and he WAS found guilty but she has not said sorry.

 

So as long as the girl didn't know she had been raped it was alright according to you. FFS.

No, basically. If someone doesn't think they've been raped I don't see how it can be rape.

I am female. Just because a couple are married - or in a relationship - doesn't mean that a man has a right to have sex. Any woman has the right to say 'No'.

 

If a woman is trying not to allow penetration do you still think she wants sex? Does it never occur to you that, just because you want sex that the woman might not?

 

It does not make a man any less of a man if he respects what a woman says - and that what a woman says is what she means.

What if you being female got to do with it? And why the use of man and woman? Surely person would suffice. Woman can commit sexual assault too and one men.

[Tsunami]

really?? I wasnt aware.. Have you a link so i can have a butchers please.

 

 

EDIT.

 

Just been reading his website and its quite interesting reading, obviously bias towards him but certainly raises a few questions.

Looks like you have been duped by orion. The Third Man put the case on this forum yesterday, and is the reason why I have no sympathy for Evans, and support both the stances taken by Ennis and Charlie.

Are you kidding? Two people having sex is not "vile and disgusting" it's 2014 now, not 1914, we've moved on, people have sex all the time without being in a relationship and having only met them hours earlier. Some people go out dogging and have sex with people they have literally just met. Two drunk people meting and having sex doesn't make 1 or the other vile or deplorable.

 

Exactly. It seems it's ok to acuse someone or rape and risk having them thrown in prison for 3-10 years and then not allow them to ever work again. She DID accuse him of rape and he WAS found guilty but she has not said sorry.

 

No, basically. If someone doesn't think they've been raped I don't see how it can be rape.

What if you being female got to do with it? And why the use of man and woman? Surely person would suffice. Woman can commit sexual assault too and one men.

And that's your problem. So according to you no offence was therefore committed. What about rape dating using drugs. Is that OK and above the law. NO.

[Arson fire]

Looks like you have been duped by orion. The Third Man put the case on this forum yesterday, and is the reason why I have no sympathy for Evans, and support both the stances taken by Ennis and Charlie.

 

And that's your problem. So according to you no offence was therefore committed. What about rape dating using drugs. Is that OK and above the law. NO.

duped by no one?? Im my own person and think the verdict is very dodgy ( just my opinion).. Though i can see and understand why others dont...

 

Just out of interest i was asking a top top brain injury lawyer yesterday and i mean top of his field... With many many years of dealing with litigation of the affects of alcohol on the brain, memory loss and confabulation.... In his opinion, what she consumed wouldnt scratch the surface to give her the amnesia she allegedly had that night, i think i may have been duped by him if anyone.

[scribbler]

 

What if you being female got to do with it?

 

Because a remark by another forum user assumed I was male.

[SCB]

 

Because a remark by another forum user assumed I was male.

They must have deleted it then.

[The Third Man]

 

No, basically. If someone doesn't think they've been raped I don't see how it can be rape.

 

i wasnt going to comment anymore as no matter what facts are presented some people will see what they wantbut the above statement is unbelievable

 

so an adult with learning difficulties or someone with dementia., who under the mental capacity act cant consent to sex are there for any one to use when they want, amazing statemet

 

and being too drunk to either consent or know what is happeneing / has happened to them is also covered under the mental capacity act as well

 

i really fear for women in this country with the attitude of some posters on the site

Edited November 14, 2014 by The Third Man

[SCB]

i really fear for women in this country with the attitude of some posters on the site

And another one. What about the men? Men can be raped and sexually abused to. Or do you subscribe to scribblers views that only men can rape women?

 

Its never been sugested the girl in question had learning difficulties or lacked any "mental capacity" so I'm not sure what the relevance is.

 

I fear for people when they can;'t have sex with someone without a written contract that states the person agrees to it. And it's signed by a witness

Edited November 14, 2014 by SCB

[scribbler]

I don't believe that only men rape women - or that only women are raped.

[Tsunami]

And another one. What about the men? Men can be raped and sexually abused to. Or do you subscribe to scribblers views that only men can rape women?

 

Its never been sugested the girl in question had learning difficulties or lacked any "mental capacity" so I'm not sure what the relevance is.

 

I fear for people when they can;'t have sex with someone without a written contract that states the person agrees to it. And it's signed by a witness

scribbler never said it was only women that can be raped.

 

Are you trying to just obtuse and deliberately missing the point. TTM listed instances of cases where rape could occur, and not be known by the victim. Your version and attitude in reply seems to be that rape is not rape then. For your sake I hope you don't get raped, you might want to think on that.

[E I Addio]

 

The fact remains it's all down to her consent in the bedroom and the case of the crown is that she was in no state to say no . thus making it impossible to find one Guilty and the other not .

 

 

Its not so much a question of whether she was in a state to say no, more a question of whether she was in a state to say yes. It seems the difference between McDonald and Evans is that she willingly went to the room with McDonald and I presume must have known what she was going there for, but Evans who she had never met, apparently managed to persuade the hotel porter to give him a key to the room and let himself in, so technically he was an uninvited guest as far as the girl was concerned so technically I suppose that is the difference between Evans and Clayton.

 

Until about 5 years ago Evans could have got away with it on the grounds that he honestly believed she was consenting but the government changed the law and he no longer has that defence.

 

The fact remains that whatever he says the jury found him guilty and the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal so its difficult to argue with the conviction. The issue is whether he should go back to playing football. I don't think politicians should normally comment on these things but inevitably they do and the First Minister of Wales and a few others have said he should not play again and as for as I know, nobody of any particular fame or authority has backed him so it looks like he has an uphill struggle.

[Mike.Butler]

Ultimately money talks and the sponsors will pay heed to public opinion which will in turn dictate SUFC's (and other clubs) stance re this. This is our world in which football especially and society in general works...

[SteveLyric2]

Ultimately money talks and the sponsors will pay heed to public opinion which will in turn dictate SUFC's (and other clubs) stance re this. This is our world in which football especially and society in general works...

...and it seems as though it has!!!

[2ndbendbeerhut]

Seems strange that everyone keeps going on about Evans when there is a convicted rapist who owns a Championship club and from what I recall this has been swept under the carpet.....

[The Third Man]

And another one. What about the men? Men can be raped and sexually abused to. Or do you subscribe to scribblers views that only men can rape women?

 

Its never been sugested the girl in question had learning difficulties or lacked any "mental capacity" so I'm not sure what the relevance is.

 

I fear for people when they can;'t have sex with someone without a written contract that states the person agrees to it. And it's signed by a witness

 

No according to the Sexual Offences Act anyone can rape anyone, male to female, male to male, female to male and female to female

 

although why that is relevant in this case i dont know, unless the sober evans was raped by the extremely drunk girl

 

again it seems to some people that a girl is open season if she is incapabable of saying no, and as i said the Mental capacity Act covers anyone who cant consent for any reason, including being unconscious or under anaesthetic or due to an excess of drugs or alcohol, or is it ok having sex in those circumstances because the other person cant say no?

[orion]

 

 

Its not so much a question of whether she was in a state to say no, more a question of whether she was in a state to say yes. It seems the difference between McDonald and Evans is that she willingly went to the room with McDonald and I presume must have known what she was going there for, but Evans who she had never met, apparently managed to persuade the hotel porter to give him a key to the room and let himself in, so technically he was an uninvited guest as far as the girl was concerned so technically I suppose that is the difference between Evans and Clayton.

 

Until about 5 years ago Evans could have got away with it on the grounds that he honestly believed she was consenting but the government changed the law and he no longer has that defence.

 

The fact remains that whatever he says the jury found him guilty and the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal so its difficult to argue with the conviction. The issue is whether he should go back to playing football. I don't think politicians should normally comment on these things but inevitably they do and the First Minister of Wales and a few others have said he should not play again and as for as I know, nobody of any particular fame or authority has backed him so it looks like he has an uphill struggle.

Not at all the crowns case was pretty clear that in that hotel room was had no control of what she was doing ..so if that was the case one can't be guilty and the other not ... you can't have it both ways . if she was out her head as the crown say that it matters not if you were invited or not it's still rape .

 

As we have seen on this forum it's very easy to argue with the conviction .

Edited November 16, 2014 by orion

[Aces51]

All any of us know is what was reported in the press and I certainly wouldn't want to rely on that either being accurate or detailing all of the evidence given. The fact is that a jury convicted him having heard all of the evidence and perhaps, more importantly, having had the benefit of seeing the witnesses, which enables a much better assessment of their veracity. They also would have had clear directions from the Judge on the law relating to rape.

 

That is not to say that juries do not make mistakes but the vast majority of jury verdicts are not overturned. At the moment we do not even know if the Criminal Cases Review Commission will refer his case.

 

However, regardless of that, my view is that Evans has served his time and should now be free to pursue his chosen career with whichever club is prepared to employ him.

 

With regard to Charlie Webster, she is perfectly entitled to express her views and should not be vilified for doing so.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Aces51

[Brooksy]

All any of us know is what was reported in the press and I certainly wouldn't want to rely on that either being accurate or detailing all of the evidence given. The fact is that a jury convicted him having heard all of the evidence and perhaps, more importantly, having had the benefit of seeing the witnesses, which enables a much better assessment of their veracity. They also would have had clear directions from the Judge on the law relating to rape.

 

That is not to say that juries do not make mistakes but the vast majority of jury verdicts are not overturned. At the moment we do not even know if the Criminal Cases Review Commission will refer his case.

 

However, regardless of that, my view is that Evans has served his time and should now be free to pursue his chosen career with whichever club is prepared to employ him.

 

With regard to Charlie Webster, she is perfectly entitled to express her views and should not be vilified for doing so.

 

Wholeheartedly agree with you Aces51 ..........apart from the point about being 'free to pursue his chosen career'. That's fine if he were a mechanic, or a postman, or any number of 'normal' jobs, but if he were, say, a policeman, or a schoolteacher, or a doctor, we would not even be having this debate!

As his chosen career is very much in the public eye, as a prospective role model and sporting hero to many thousands of young, impressionable men, then, in my opinion, he should not be allowed to pursue it.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Barney Rebel

[Gavan]

Charlie Webster is 100% right in her actions.

 

Ched Evans is a CONVICTED rapist. The fact he is appealing is irrelevent. Should we let convicted murderers, rapists , peados go back and do there day job in society because they dont believe they are guilty and appealing?? Of course not.

 

If Ched Evans appeals and is found not guilty by all means let him back.

 

Im now waiting for a thread to be started about Jessica Ennis but i very much doubt it will happen.

To me it just shows how shallow people are to be moaning about Charlie just because they dont like her presenting skills, and not actually looking at the whole picture.

 

Im no fan of Charlie but she is totally right and so to is Jessica Ennis.

 

Innocent until proven guilty is fine.

Guilty until proved innocent isnt

[SteveLyric2]

All any of us know is what was reported in the press and I certainly wouldn't want to rely on that either being accurate or detailing all of the evidence given. The fact is that a jury convicted him having heard all of the evidence and perhaps, more importantly, having had the benefit of seeing the witnesses, which enables a much better assessment of their veracity. They also would have had clear directions from the Judge on the law relating to rape.

 

That is not to say that juries do not make mistakes but the vast majority of jury verdicts are not overturned. At the moment we do not even know if the Criminal Cases Review Commission will refer his case.

 

However, regardless of that, my view is that Evans has served his time and should now be free to pursue his chosen career with whichever club is prepared to employ him.

 

With regard to Charlie Webster, she is perfectly entitled to express her views and should not be vilified for doing so.

Its not as if he's served all his time!!! He's only out 'on licence'!!! There are other 'professions' that would not allow a convicted rapist to return to their former employment - but it doesn't stop him/them from seeking employment elsewhere.