Cycling UK Forum

The relatives of the victims of criminal footballers like Lee Hughes, Luke McCormick and Courtney Meppen-Walter must be quite sad at the moment.

Effectively they've been told by the press, politicians and internet campaigns that their dead loved ones, killed by those criminal, dangerous driving footballers, are victims of a less serious crime than a rape victim.

Penfolds11 wrote:

mike_dowler wrote:Beyond that, there is the question of the undisputed facts. He admits that he picked up a girl who was drunk and took her to a hotel for sex. This in itself shows fairly questionable (though by no means unknown amongst footballers) morality.

Unfortunately, that is not true.

The undisputed fact is that Clayton McDonald invited the girl back to his hotel room for sex. Evans arrived at the room later, while they were having sex, and asked her if he could also have sex with her. She claims she cannot remember consenting to Evans.

Then on reasonable doubt the jury should have found Evans not guilty. She can't remember consenting i.e. she may have done, she may not have done....

Those opposed to Evans returning to football seem a morally dubious bunch - a Latics board member was told his daughter would be raped if the club signed Evans.

blackbike wrote:The relatives of the victims of criminal footballers like Lee Hughes, Luke McCormick and Courtney Meppen-Walter must be quite sad at the moment.

Effectively they've been told by the press, politicians and internet campaigns that their dead loved ones, killed by those criminal, dangerous driving footballers, are victims of a less serious crime than a rape victim.

I doubt it.
Even it does cross their minds it won't come anywhere near the depth of feeling caused by the loss of their children.

What worries me is that the judge set the punishment and I assume it was reasonable as I assume (s)he based it on the jury findings and details of the offence (s)he heard throughout the trial (and nobody seems to be claiming "he got-off far too lightly" and nobody seems to be appealing the sentence). And having done his assigned punishment, certain members of the public seem to think he now deserves more and so are in effect dishing out further punishment.

So should the courts set the punishment based on the details that only those listening to the entire trial can appreciate; or should the public set the punishment on an ongoing basis as and how and when anybody sees fit and based on having heard the details of the case as reported in whichever news source they chose to read/believe.

I am rather uncomfortable with (a few) members of the public in effect increasing the punishment given by the court because they want to. Seems a bit of an injustice in itself.

Ian

pete75 wrote:

Penfolds11 wrote:

mike_dowler wrote:Beyond that, there is the question of the undisputed facts. He admits that he picked up a girl who was drunk and took her to a hotel for sex. This in itself shows fairly questionable (though by no means unknown amongst footballers) morality.

Unfortunately, that is not true.

The undisputed fact is that Clayton McDonald invited the girl back to his hotel room for sex. Evans arrived at the room later, while they were having sex, and asked her if he could also have sex with her. She claims she cannot remember consenting to Evans.

Then on reasonable doubt the jury should have found Evans not guilty. She can't remember consenting i.e. she may have done, she may not have done....

Those opposed to Evans returning to football seem a morally dubious bunch - a Latics board member was told his daughter would be raped if the club signed Evans.

Not as I understand the law as it stands. The law says that if she was incapable of consenting because she was incapacitated then a rape takes place if a man has sex with her. That was defendant of the conviction I believe.

Bonefishblues wrote:

pete75 wrote:

Penfolds11 wrote:
The undisputed fact is that Clayton McDonald invited the girl back to his hotel room for sex. Evans arrived at the room later, while they were having sex, and asked her if he could also have sex with her. She claims she cannot remember consenting to Evans.

Then on reasonable doubt the jury should have found Evans not guilty. She can't remember consenting i.e. she may have done, she may not have done....

Those opposed to Evans returning to football seem a morally dubious bunch - a Latics board member was told his daughter would be raped if the club signed Evans.

Not as I understand the law as it stands. The law says that if she was incapable of consenting because she was incapacitated then a rape takes place if a man has sex with her. That was defendant of the conviction I believe.

What do you mean by incapacitated - unconscious? That doesn't seem to have been the case and , according to this, ‘drunken consent is still consent’.

"The law recognizes the evidential problems of this area. In
England, the lead case is R v Bree (2007) 2 Cr.App R 13. In
that case, Sir Igor Judge pointed out that after the voluntary
consumption of alcohol by autonomous adults, the critical
question was whether the evidence proved that the defendant
had sexual intercourse with the complainant without her
consent. If the complainant consented, her consent could not
be revoked. The phrase ‘drunken consent is still consent’ was
said to lack delicacy in the context of sexual intercourse but,
properly understood, provided a useful shorthand accurately
encapsulating the legal position. It also acts as a reminder that
a drunken intention to commit rape is still rape"

http://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/document ... 281%29.pdf

pete75 wrote:

blackbike wrote:The relatives of the victims of criminal footballers like Lee Hughes, Luke McCormick and Courtney Meppen-Walter must be quite sad at the moment.

Effectively they've been told by the press, politicians and internet campaigns that their dead loved ones, killed by those criminal, dangerous driving footballers, are victims of a less serious crime than a rape victim.

I doubt it.
Even it does cross their minds it won't come anywhere near the depth of feeling caused by the loss of their children.

Do you doubt it?

So you've had your two young children killed by a drunken dangerous driving footballer and a couple of years later you see him released from prison, return to play football and even be appointed captain of his team.

And you don't feel sad when a footballing criminal rapist who hasn't killed anyone is prevented from returning to play football by a hysterical outburst of moral indignation?


In my opinion, rape is a vile, unforgivable crime. Yet it seems that killing innocent people by dangerous drunken driving is a forgivable crime for the UK's press, TV and wider population.

blackbike wrote:

pete75 wrote:

blackbike wrote:The relatives of the victims of criminal footballers like Lee Hughes, Luke McCormick and Courtney Meppen-Walter must be quite sad at the moment.

Effectively they've been told by the press, politicians and internet campaigns that their dead loved ones, killed by those criminal, dangerous driving footballers, are victims of a less serious crime than a rape victim.

I doubt it.
Even it does cross their minds it won't come anywhere near the depth of feeling caused by the loss of their children.

Do you doubt it?

So you've had your two young children killed by a drunken dangerous driving footballer and a couple of years later you see him released from prison, return to play football and even be appointed captain of his team.

And you don't feel sad when a footballing criminal rapist who hasn't killed anyone is prevented from returning to play football by a hysterical outburst of moral indignation?


In my opinion, rape is a vile, unforgivable crime. Yet it seems that killing innocent people by dangerous drunken driving is a forgivable crime for the UK's press, TV and wider population.

I have lost a child in circumstances which I'm not going into here and yes I doubt it very much.

@pete75
One might not agree, and the different verdicts of the two men are a cause for concern, but that was the basis for his conviction, that she could not remember consent, and further that she had not been in a position to give consent.

Judge Merfyn Hughes QC stated in his sentencing remarks that: "The complainant was 19 years of age and was extremely intoxicated. CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend. As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse. When you arrived at the hotel, you must have realised that."

Bonefishblues wrote:@pete75
One might not agree, and the different verdicts of the two men are a cause for concern, but that was the basis for his conviction, that she could not remember consent, and further that she had not been in a position to give consent.

Judge Merfyn Hughes QC stated in his sentencing remarks that: "The complainant was 19 years of age and was extremely intoxicated. CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend. As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse. When you arrived at the hotel, you must have realised that."

And yet she was conscious enough for her to ask the convicted party to give her oral sex though, that (from the hotel CCTV footage) she was able to walk freely unaided into the hotel through the doors then do an about turn whilst wearing very high heels go back through the doors bend down (in the same high heels) into the taxi, again unaided to retrieve her pizza off the back seat without wobbling or falling over and having the conscious thought to remember it was there....

Tonyf33 wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:@pete75
One might not agree, and the different verdicts of the two men are a cause for concern, but that was the basis for his conviction, that she could not remember consent, and further that she had not been in a position to give consent.

Judge Merfyn Hughes QC stated in his sentencing remarks that: "The complainant was 19 years of age and was extremely intoxicated. CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend. As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse. When you arrived at the hotel, you must have realised that."

And yet she was conscious enough for her to ask the convicted party to give her oral sex though, that (from the hotel CCTV footage) she was able to walk freely unaided into the hotel through the doors then do an about turn whilst wearing very high heels go back through the doors bend down (in the same high heels) into the taxi, again unaided to retrieve her pizza off the back seat without wobbling or falling over and having the conscious thought to remember it was there....

I understand that and presumably that will form the basis of the appeal, but we were discussing that basis of his conviction and the law surrounding it.

Tonyf33 wrote:And yet she was conscious enough for her to ask the convicted party to give her oral sex though, that (from the hotel CCTV footage) she was able to walk freely unaided into the hotel through the doors then do an about turn whilst wearing very high heels go back through the doors bend down (in the same high heels) into the taxi, again unaided to retrieve her pizza off the back seat without wobbling or falling over and having the conscious thought to remember it was there....

If that level of drunkenness was the basis for the conviction there are many thousands of rapes every week. And if she was too drunk to consent to sex with Ched Evans how was she sober enough to consent to sex with his friend? Only the jury knows that one.

irc wrote:

Tonyf33 wrote:And yet she was conscious enough for her to ask the convicted party to give her oral sex though, that (from the hotel CCTV footage) she was able to walk freely unaided into the hotel through the doors then do an about turn whilst wearing very high heels go back through the doors bend down (in the same high heels) into the taxi, again unaided to retrieve her pizza off the back seat without wobbling or falling over and having the conscious thought to remember it was there....

If that level of drunkenness was the basis for the conviction there are many thousands of rapes every week. And if she was too drunk to consent to sex with Ched Evans how was she sober enough to consent to sex with his friend? Only the jury knows that one.

I think one of the difficulties with discussing the evidence (and thus the verdict) is that we are very dependent on (often) the likes of the Daily Mail (and others) for the accurate details of what transpired. So "Person X did Y then Z happened" might actually have been "Person X did Y, consumed a bottle of whiskey then did Y"; (not suggesting that is what happened) but you probably had to have been in court for the full trial to gain an accurate appreciation as to what different parties claimed to have happened and how credible, contradictory and consistent those accounts were. So often reporters seem to present edited highlights with the edited out bits selected to bias the conclusion their readership will make.

Ian

Remember also that the jury don't read the evidence: they see the witnesses giving their evidence and that's all in the setting of a theatrical production by people in fancy dress, following rules which assume that the jurors are not capable of making a fair decision and so limit what evidence they are allowed to hear.

Psamathe wrote:[I think one of the difficulties with discussing the evidence (and thus the verdict) is that we are very dependent on (often) the likes of the Daily Mail (and others) for the accurate details of what transpired. So "Person X did Y then Z happened" might actually have been "Person X did Y, consumed a bottle of whiskey then did Y"; (not suggesting that is what happened) but you probably had to have been in court for the full trial to gain an accurate appreciation as to what different parties claimed to have happened and how credible, contradictory and consistent those accounts were. So often reporters seem to present edited highlights with the edited out bits selected to bias the conclusion their readership will make.

Ian

True. Though in this case there is publicly available CCTV showing the victim walking easily unaided to and from a taxi to retrieve a pizza. So there is some evidence to allow an opinion as to her level of drunkenness.

I've yet to read any decent suggestion how drunkenness could mean she could consent to one but not the other.