The Banter Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've not read a huge amount on the case but, doesn't it boil down to a woman being black out drunk, doing something stupid, then insisting she didn't want to in the morning?

She thinks she might have been drugged because the several pints, few shots then multiple vodka's later on wouldn't normally cause her to be that drunk. Even though, she bumped into them later on in a take away place?

Every time I read about it, it came across as a woman who got black out drunk, did stuff she regretted in the morning and cried rape.... maybe when she realised who she had sex with?

Somehow, a bunch of people go out, get drunk, act like fools and then in the morning have a different opinion on what happened winds me up, if you don't want to black out and be utterly stupid, don't drink that much to start with?

Considering Mcdonald took the woman back to his hotel room then phoned Evans and told him he'd found someone...... how he isn't guilty and Evan's is I have no freaking clue. Likewise her only real claim is, she can't remember anything, she blacked out, she doesn't remember going there, or what happened, just waking up. how someone can get five years because a woman can't believe she did something stupid while blacked out drunk, with no idea if she ever said no, or instigated it I have no idea, its shocking, its actually sickening. The fact that the guy who took her back and told the other guy to come over gets off is just absurd, completely. Absolutely mental case.

"I totally don't remember what happened, but I'd like to THINK i'm not a black out drunk slapper who banged a few guys, so yeah, I'm going to ASSUME I was raped, and have some people put in jail".

There is a chance she was genuinely raped, but as she can't remotely say she was, putting anyone in jail over what she kind of hopes happened, is literally insane. Case boils down to, woman "I don't know anything about what happened", men "she found us, and had sex with us"....... turns into guilty for rape, utter madness.
 
Last edited:
Moothead2 said:
I'm always dubious of rape charges against people who could be seen as famous. Looking at the case, the evidence seems pretty weak to be honest.
Click to expand...

It's seems like a farce to me, quite how one can be deemed to be innocent, and one quilty.... just doesn't seem right to me.

How can "I don't remember" count as damning evidence as well? :confused:

So for all she knows, she could have been led there, ankles warming her ears begging for it...... likewise, she could also have been unconscious and they did actually rape her.

Someone actually gets sent down with that kind of case against them, that's the sad thing.
 
Last edited:


This is exactly how I see it. It feels as though it's Liam Stacey all over again to be honest. Something that 1,000s of people have probably done or had done to them in the past (Got silly drunk, had sex and regretted it or not remembered agreeing to it) yet they seem to be singled out. Now, there may be evidence that we don't know about but it seems like their word against hers. Do you know if the two footballers were drunk too at the time?
 
Moothead2 said:
This is exactly how I see it. It feels as though it's Liam Stacey all over again to be honest. Something that 1,000s of people have probably done or had done to them in the past (Got silly drunk, had sex and regretted it or not remembered agreeing to it) yet they seem to be singled out. Now, there may be evidence that we don't know about but it seems like their word against hers. Do you know if the two footballers were drunk too at the time?
Click to expand...

According to McDonald's evidence, he said he was drunk but in control of what he was doing.

"I was looking to get a taxi, I just wanted to go home," he told police. He said he was "tipsy" after the night out but "knew what he was doing".
 
Even more shockingly for me, the Judge brought up that CCTV footage shows apparently how drunk the woman was when she met McDonald, and she was apparently clearly too drunk to consent... yet McDonald gets off and Evan's doesn't, but from the sounds of it Evans came to the room she would likely have already been in bed right?

How can McDonald see her walking around and completely drunk, but not get done for rape, but Evan's, seeing a woman on the bed having sex, should immediately be able to tell she's too drunk to decide for herself and he gets done for rape.

If anything, the only way you could interpret that is McDonald had a chance to see how drunk she was and Evan's didn't, how he can get off and he doesn't, its madness based SOLELY on a piece of footage of a time that only McDonald witnessed? Even then, it's still not enough to put someone away on. She can't even say she was raped, like I said, maybe she was, but the fact she can't say it, but assumes she could have been..... it's just ridiculous.

Meh, the whole thing stinks, and, maybe its just the cynic in me but the richer footballer who used to be at a prem league club, the richest club in the league no less, gets done while the Port Vale player walks free.......
 
Last edited:
Was going to stick too "Ched Evans is a rapist, Ched Evans she said noooooo-oh"

Nearly as good our old lee barnard song, though he was proven to be not guilty this week which has killed it a bit as he's no longer wanted by scotland yard and has proven to not be that hard....
 
It's a stunning decision that a man can be found guilty of rape where she herself does not know whether she did or did not want sex. Essentially it's the jury making up a decision, probably solely based around how much they do or do not like the defendant as there is no factual evidence to draw a satisfactory conclusion. In essence this law allows a drunk woman to decide whether or not she has been raped and it then seems to be the defendants job to prove his innocence. It plays out as guilty until proven innocent which goes completely against our criminal code.

It is a tough area because people could then get away with rape by getting someone too drunk to remember what happened. Alternatively finding someone guilty on the facts (that I have read anyway) is immoral and I would argue illegal.

It is an emotive issue but they need to look at bringing in a lesser offence than rape for cases like this because you cannot find someone guilty in situations like this or we will all need to watch out because drunken sex equalling rape will depend on the mood of the woman the morning after.

Baffling.
 
It's also becoming an issue because they specifically were looking for McDonald to have asked her if she consents to sex basically, he took her initiating contact as consent.

The vast vast majority of sex is simply a progression of contact, no specific asking if they consent, its madness to assume that is required. IE a girl you're with, who went to your hotel willingly, who asked to get in the cab with you, takes her clothes of, pulls your wang out and goes to town on it.... but because you never specifically asked her if she wanted sex, it can be taken as no consent given... insane.

People could go around getting people drunk to have sex with them "in a bad way" but I guess most people do that to a degree anyway, not in a bad way, people just drink on a night out, loosen up and loads of people end up having sex. if someone is concious and talking with really any sense you can't tell exactly how drunk someone is. I know I've had conversations with people and walked home and the like utterly black out drunk. Sometimes people pass out or are slurring, so incapable of standing up its obvious they are out of it, just being drunk and stumbling around a bit doesn't in any way make it obvious they are "that" drunk, especially if the other person is pretty drunk themselves.

In no way, at all, does a girl invite herself to be raped by going out drinking with friends, but getting black out drunk has consequences, not being raped, but, almost everyone I know has done or said things they regretted and wouldn't have said sober, not that they wouldn't want to just they would have more self control when sober. The idea that a man is going to jail for rape, essentially because she got too drunk and very possibly, if not more likely, simply acted in a way that wouldn't normally be her... is insane.

Also fully agree on there being lesser charges, this guy has instantly been branded on every news site, every newspaper, all over the web as "rapist Ched Evans sent to jail", etc, etc. Should it be fair that someone who attacks, bruttally beats and rapes multiple women gets called the same thing as a guy, who is accused of having sex with someone who probably didn't tell him no, but MIGHT not have been capable of saying no, gets called and treated the same?

I think that is one of the biggest problems with this case, even if she wasn't capable of saying no, she wasn't a mentally handicapped women he came across walking home and prayed on, this was a normal woman, who could have been talking perfectly coherantly when he met her in the room, where it was impossible to tell she was as drunk as she was? Even if she wasn't capable, there is no way of actually knowing that for the men involved. Without knowing exactly how drunk she was acting, its impossible to say, and without knowing how drunk they were, we don't know if they could have realised it either.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom