Should Ched Evans be allowed back into football

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I'd feel a lot less forgiving if his victim had any recollection of him violating her

Dear Lord.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Dear Lord.

Yawn, instead of attempting to infer things why not just ask for an explanation.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Yawn, instead of attempting to infer things why not just ask for an explanation.

I think your comment already adequately explains itself.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Kursk

I think your comment already adequately explains itself.

well jog on then you boring little wum

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

well jog on then you boring little wum

Now, now mummy's little soldier shouldn't be rude.

Ok I'll indulge you (as would a kind father), please explain why you'd "feel a lot less forgiving if his victim had any recollection of him violating her" .

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Now, now mummy's little soldier shouldn't be rude.

Ok I'll indulge you (as would a kind father), please explain why you'd "feel a lot less forgiving if his victim had any recollection of him violating her" .

because you said in violating her he took herself respect, I don't think he did, she has no memory of the incident or what he did to her, I feel a lot less forgiving to those types that drag women into bushes and rape at knife point than I do the likes of Evans.

Oh and I wasn't being rude, what else do you call someone that attempts to infer things from what's said and continues such approach despite already having been corrected.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

because you said in violating her he took herself respect, I don't think he did, she has no memory of the incident or what he did to her, I feel a lot less forgiving to those types that drag women into bushes and rape at knife point than I do the likes of Evans.

Well, I'm afraid our opinions differ. Rape is rape. You appear to feel that there are 'nice' rapes which make them acceptable.

I don't want to be vulgar but if someone buggered you whilst you were incapacitated would you think that you had been fair game?

[Arthurgray50@blu]

WHAT, will people say IF new evidence which wasn't seen at the trial, its on his website. And l have read it.

IF he wins the appeal, and his conviction is quashed, l can see lot of compo coming someones way

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Well, I'm afraid our opinions differ. Rape is rape. You appear to feel that there are 'nice' rapes which make them acceptable.

I don't want to be vulgar but if someone buggered you whilst you were incapacitated would you think that you had been fair game?

I'm guessing you're trolling just to be offensive. Nobody has ever suggested any sort of rape is 'nice' and it's pretty low of you to suggest they have.

Whereas rape is rape as you rightly say, there is a difference between someone having sex with a woman when she's too drunk to remember whether or not she consented, and when she is beaten up, forced to the floor and attacked.

The difference is intent. Can it be proven the former intended to take advantage? In case your habit of putting words in peoples' mouths returns I'll make it clear I'm not suggesting someone in that situation ought to be treated more leniently.

But there is still a difference.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Well, I'm afraid our opinions differ. Rape is rape. You appear to feel that there are 'nice' rapes which make them acceptable.

I don't want to be vulgar but if someone buggered you whilst you were incapacitated would you think that you had been fair game?

To be fair, good point well made.

---------- Post added at 19:55 ---------- Previous post was at 19:47 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

Whereas rape is rape as you rightly say, there is a difference between someone having sex with a woman when she's too drunk to remember whether or not she consented, and when she is beaten up, forced to the floor and attacked.

Oh dear, there isn't.

Because if she is too " drunk" to consent, then she didn't consent. It's quite that simple.

The difference is intent.

nope, intent is the same, to have sex with the woman, whether she wants to or not.

If the woman cannot give consent, or is in such a state that non- responsiveness or the ability to say no is impaired, then consent is not given.

For men who have trouble understanding this, I think the example given is absolutely spot on. If you came round in an apartment with a sore backside, I'm sure you'd think differently

[nomadking]

She would have been very drunk when she supposedly gave "consent" to McDonald. She hadn't drunk any more since "agreeing" to go back to the hotel with McDonald.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by nomadking

She would have been very drunk when she supposedly gave "consent" to McDonald. She hadn't drunk any more since "agreeing" to go back to the hotel with McDonald.

Well, that's sort of the point isn't it?

Originally Posted by nomadking

She would have been very drunk when she supposedly gave "consent" to McDonald. She hadn't drunk any more since "agreeing" to go back to the hotel with McDonald.

But did she agree to have sex with Evans?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Top banana

But did she agree to have sex with Evans?

That hasn't been the full question. It was decided on the basis that she was too drunk. If she was too drunk to consent to Evans, then automatically, if not more so, she couldn't consent to McDonald.

Originally Posted by nomadking

That hasn't been the full question. It was decided on the basis that she was too drunk. If she was too drunk to consent to Evans, then automatically, if not more so, she couldn't consent to McDonald.

Ok but the jury thought different as did the judge at his appeal, so not sure what you are getting at?