Ched Evans rape conviction quashed
Discussion
of course it was Well obviously you've spoken to her so can say for certain.
I also stated that a third party 'said she would ask', so I'm not sure why you'd then make a dictionary comment to me. Unless you meant all the journalists do:
I also stated that a third party 'said she would ask', so I'm not sure why you'd then make a dictionary comment to me. Unless you meant all the journalists do:
La Liga said:
Indeed. The coverage said she would ask (not make) them remove her name if they re-signed him.
La Liga said:
Well obviously you've spoken to her so can say for certain.
I also stated that a third party 'said she would ask', so I'm not sure why you'd then make a dictionary comment to me. Unless you meant all the journalists do:
I also stated that a third party 'said she would ask', so I'm not sure why you'd then make a dictionary comment to me. Unless you meant all the journalists do:
La Liga said:
Indeed. The coverage said she would ask (not make) them remove her name if they re-signed him.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
So if the Tories do something I disagree with, and I tell my MP that unless they reverse the decision, I won't vote for them next time, that's blackmail!
I've heard it all now.
Not ordinarily interested in silly little games with pedants, but filled 30 seconds all the same. Thanks!
I don't see it anything like blackmail/extortion - 'told' 'asked' etc are irrelevant really - she didn't make an unwarranted demand, it's like anyone else withdrawing sponsorship/breaking a contract after a substantial change in conditions. Completely normal, at that time, I would have thought.
andy_s said:
I don't see it anything like blackmail/extortion - 'told' 'asked' etc are irrelevant really - she didn't make an unwarranted demand, it's like anyone else withdrawing sponsorship/breaking a contract after a substantial change in conditions. Completely normal, at that time, I would have thought.
I agree, although the whole thing seems to have caused her plenty of dramasThis thread. 
He was found guilty, she (and others) formed an opinion and made statements based on that verdict.
He was subsequently found not guilty (not "innocent", an important distiction), based on additional evidence that was not presented during the first trial. This does not invalidate the original verdict, nor compel Ennis or anyone else to walk back whatever opinion they might have of him.
Hell, the guy is a massive t
t based purely on what is not in dispute. I wouldn't want, and wouldn't expect, anyone to touch him with a barge pole in terms of PR.
He was found guilty, she (and others) formed an opinion and made statements based on that verdict.
He was subsequently found not guilty (not "innocent", an important distiction), based on additional evidence that was not presented during the first trial. This does not invalidate the original verdict, nor compel Ennis or anyone else to walk back whatever opinion they might have of him.
Hell, the guy is a massive t
t based purely on what is not in dispute. I wouldn't want, and wouldn't expect, anyone to touch him with a barge pole in terms of PR.bmw535i said:
Not especially. She was willing.
Ok, we'll have to agree to disagree. He didn't know her willingness or capacity to give consent before illegitimately obtaining a room key and letting himself in.As a general rule of thumb whilst drunk consent can be consent, it is (or should be) obvious to anyone that it is extremely fraught with risk, particularly where two total strangers are concerned. By the guy's own admission he didn't speak to her before, during or after the event - and it's only in this appeal that it's come out (I'd venture somewhat suspiciously) that she said something to him (or someone in the room at least) that was taken as implied consent. The courts agreed on this occasion.
Durzel said:
bmw535i said:
Not especially. She was willing.
Ok, we'll have to agree to disagree. He didn't know her willingness or capacity to give consent before illegitimately obtaining a room key and letting himself in.As a general rule of thumb whilst drunk consent can be consent, it is (or should be) obvious to anyone that it is extremely fraught with risk, particularly where two total strangers are concerned. By the guy's own admission he didn't speak to her before, during or after the event - and it's only in this appeal that it's come out (I'd venture somewhat suspiciously) that she said something to him (or someone in the room at least) that was taken as implied consent. The courts agreed on this occasion.
andy_s said:
Extremely fraught with risk but happens about 5,000 times over a typical weekend I'd hazard; at least the two drunken strangers bit.
Oh, no doubt. Drunken encounters will always happen, but the issue of "capacity to consent", particularly when excessive alcohol is involved is very real. I also don't think there is a practical solution beyond constant re-education (ie. someone who is borderline paralytic can't give consent, etc)Edited by Durzel on Wednesday 19th October 20:10
Durzel said:
Oh, no doubt. Drunken encounters will always happen, but the issue of "capacity to consent", particularly when excessive alcohol is involved is very real. I also don't think there is a practical solution beyond constant re-education (ie. someone who is borderline paralytic can't give consent, etc)
I am a bit uncomfortable with the idea that she can apparently consent, decide retrospectively that it doesn't count because she was drunk, but he is still responsible for his actions however drunk he was.TwigtheWonderkid said:
Dr Jekyll said:
I am a bit uncomfortable with the idea that she can apparently consent, decide retrospectively that it doesn't count because she was drunk,
She didn't do that. The police decided she hadn't consented, not her. She never made a complaint against Evans.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff