Really surprised his case hasn't even been mentioned here.

As it has been reported in the media, there are so many disturbing elements to this.

He seems to have been convicted, and sentenced to an astonishing 5 years (with his promising career obvioiusly ruined) on the basis solely that the woman who he had sex with 'can't a remember a thing' because she was so intoxicated. Despite this, the court agreed that just hours earlier she had consented to have sex with one of Chad Evan's friends.

If every man who has ever had sex with a drunk woman was locked up for 5 years there would quickly be more men in the UK in prison than outside.

Note also that in the evil patriarchal UK legal system, a woman who has sex with an intoxicated man is not a rapist.

Now there's even a petition to take Ched Evan's footballing award away from him :

www.jusnews.net/en/11/news/610/Thousands...tripped-of-award.htm

When the hell are men in this country going to wake up?

Blackit wrote:


Note also that in the evil patriarchal UK legal system, a woman who has sex with an intoxicated man is not a rapist.


good point !

I have to agree for once on the subject of rape.
If the woman had chosen to take the drink of her own free-will then she has to be responsible for her own actions. The ruling is setting a dangerous precedent.

Women should be ashamed of themselves if it wasn't a footballer would she still report it and claim she was raped ?

"If the woman had chosen to take the drink of her own free-will then she has to be responsible for her own actions."

Really? So if someone strikes up a conversation with you in a pub, gets you pissed {or merely watches you and marks you as a target} then mugs you it's your own fault?

What a dreadfully misogynistic place this has become.

Allegedly, the victim was boasting on her Twitter account that she was going to spend her 'winnings' on a new car and a holiday in Ibiza. She has also allegedly falsely accused a man in the past of raping her.

If this is true, the police have arrested over a dozen people (and counting) for highlighting something that is clearly in the public interest - the fact that a woman who has destroyed a man's life because he 'raped her', has been boasting of how she will spend her 'winnings'.

Locked Out {but not Logged In} wrote:
Really? So if someone strikes up a conversation with you in a pub, gets you pissed {or merely watches you and marks you as a target} then mugs you it's your own fault?

What a dreadfully misogynistic place this has become.

I agree.

The woman was clearly "ambushed" (remember the "got a woman" text he sent to another player???) and the fact that there was an "audience" watching through the window?

You cannot give consent if you are incapable of giving consent.

Of FAR more interest is the fact that over a dozen people now have been arrested for "naming" the woman on various social media. It will be interesting to see what the law does with them.

Locked Out {but not Logged In} wrote:
"If the woman had chosen to take the drink of her own free-will then she has to be responsible for her own actions."

Really? So if someone strikes up a conversation with you in a pub, gets you pissed {or merely watches you and marks you as a target} then mugs you it's your own fault?

What a dreadfully misogynistic place this has become.

Not a valid analogy.

The law (that was passed by NuLabor catering for radical feminists) states that a woman is raped simply by having sex with a man whilst drunk.

As far as I know, if I hand over the correct fare to the taxi driver at the end of a night out, the law does not state that I am being mugged even if I am drunk whilst he takes the money in his hands.

According to newspaper reports, she was already intoxicated when she willingly went back to the flat of Ched's friend for sex. The court ruled that that was not rape.

In The Know wrote:


Of FAR more interest is the fact that over a dozen people now have been arrested for "naming" the woman on various social media. It will be interesting to see what the law does with them.

This is indeed the most disturbing thing of all. I'm against the naming of this woman (just as I am in favour of anonymity for falsely accused men), but it seems we're getting close to the point where you could get arrested for questioning a legal verdict, or for questioning the justness of a law itself, particularly of course, if the victim is a woman, or the law is supposed to protect a woman (or a child).

Note also the hysteria that the media are trying to generate over Louise Mensche recieveing a few insults and 'threats' on Twitter - all because the poor dear defended a man who leads an organization that hacks into the phones of murdered kiddies and their relatives in order to feed salacious profit making paedosleeze scoops to its readers.

I have to say, I'm surprised at you (ITK) defending another law made by ZanuLabor at the behest of radical feminists that treats women like hanidcapped imbeciles. A black footballer walks up to a drunk woman out on the town and asks if he can take her home and f*** her, to which she immediately and heartily replies yes (the court accepted that she gave consent to this man). In the middle of the act, he phones up his friend and asks him to join in the fun. The girl wakes up and can't remember 'giving consent' to his friend and cries rape. Her dignity and honour is such that the second footballer's career and life are ruined, he is locked up for 5 years when baby rapists often get less, and anyone who questions it is a misogynist and a 'rape apologist'. Well, as radical lesbian feminists say 'all rape is rape'.

Notice that the media are full of headlines such as 'outrage at sick twitter abuse of rape victim', but are always refusing to accept comments underneath the article. Who exactly is being outraged? 'Media creates outrage at twitter abuse' would be more truthful.

Locked Out {but not Logged In} wrote:
"If the woman had chosen to take the drink of her own free-will then she has to be responsible for her own actions."

Really? So if someone strikes up a conversation with you in a pub, gets you pissed {or merely watches you and marks you as a target} then mugs you it's your own fault?

What a dreadfully misogynistic place this has become.

No obviously, you are not going to agree to been mugged, however you may agree to having sex. Obviously if you say no and the man continues, then that is rape.

Don't know enough about this case to comment about the fairness.
However the drink part is double sided.You shouldn't take advantage of somebody worse for wear in alcohol,but remember also being intoxicated is no defense if you go on to commit a crime in law.
As is often the case the law applies double standards to suit itself,as those of us on the receiving end know only too well.

Blackit wrote:
I have to say, I'm surprised at you (ITK) defending another law made by ZanuLabor at the behest of radical feminists that treats women like hanidcapped imbeciles.


..... or arrogant footballers who think they can have any girl they want ????

In The Know wrote:
Blackit wrote:
I have to say, I'm surprised at you (ITK) defending another law made by ZanuLabor at the behest of radical feminists that treats women like hanidcapped imbeciles.


..... or arrogant footballers who think they can have any girl they want ????

As usual we're all guilty of commenting about something we all know very little about.
Making assumptions is a waste of time without real evidence,and in this case I would think it comes down to the best acting skills.

are you drug running, IA ?

You seem to do alot of flitting about !

In The Know wrote:
Locked Out {but not Logged In} wrote:
Really? So if someone strikes up a conversation with you in a pub, gets you pissed {or merely watches you and marks you as a target} then mugs you it's your own fault?

What a dreadfully misogynistic place this has become.

I agree.

The woman was clearly "ambushed" (remember the "got a woman" text he sent to another player???) and the fact that there was an "audience" watching through the window?

You cannot give consent if you are incapable of giving consent.

But why, as someone suggested, is this just one way? What if a drunk man got into bed with a woman, then in the morning sobered up and wished he hadn't. If the woman has taken advantage of the bloke, why isn't that rape?

In The Know wrote:
are you drug running, IA ?

You seem to do alot of flitting about !

You asked that question before ITK,seems your memory is fading with age

IA in Margate wrote:
You asked that question before ITK,seems your memory is fading with age

My legs seem to be fading with age this morning - they wont work !!

In The Know wrote:
IA in Margate wrote:
You asked that question before ITK,seems your memory is fading with age

My legs seem to be fading with age this morning - they wont work !!

Including the middle one?

IA in Margate wrote:
Including the middle one?

Why ? ... are you dealing viagra too ?

Isn't everyone? Judging by the spam on my e-mail, it's the industry of the moment.