Hob Nob Anyone?

SCIAG wrote:

RoyallyFcuked wrote:Who even knows what happened? Only himself and the girl (doubt the girl even remembers). He maintains his innocence and I'd say there's at least as much chance that he is telling the truth as there is her. Its not really fair for us to say.

This isn't a case of his word against hers. His own account, as well as Clayton McDonald's, are what has done him in.

Probably thought she could make money out of him or something.

Except she's actively avoided doing so?

He could have misjudged her and the situation. It's a bit different to attacking a woman and forcibly raping them.

Women nearly unconscious on hotel beds are often quite willing to be raped, so I understand his confusion

("Forcibly" is redundant in the above sentence. If there isn't consent then it's rape, simple as)

girl who meets up drunkenly with random bloke on street and agrees to go back to his hotel room has given consent.
imo

melonhead wrote:

SCIAG wrote:

RoyallyFcuked wrote:Who even knows what happened? Only himself and the girl (doubt the girl even remembers). He maintains his innocence and I'd say there's at least as much chance that he is telling the truth as there is her. Its not really fair for us to say.

This isn't a case of his word against hers. His own account, as well as Clayton McDonald's, are what has done him in.

Probably thought she could make money out of him or something.

Except she's actively avoided doing so?

He could have misjudged her and the situation. It's a bit different to attacking a woman and forcibly raping them.

Women nearly unconscious on hotel beds are often quite willing to be raped, so I understand his confusion

("Forcibly" is redundant in the above sentence. If there isn't consent then it's rape, simple as)

girl who meets up drunkenly with random bloke on street and agrees to go back to his hotel room has given consent.
imo

What to him and whoever he decides to call up on the phone?

melonhead wrote:

SCIAG wrote:

RoyallyFcuked wrote:Who even knows what happened? Only himself and the girl (doubt the girl even remembers). He maintains his innocence and I'd say there's at least as much chance that he is telling the truth as there is her. Its not really fair for us to say.

This isn't a case of his word against hers. His own account, as well as Clayton McDonald's, are what has done him in.

Probably thought she could make money out of him or something.

Except she's actively avoided doing so?

He could have misjudged her and the situation. It's a bit different to attacking a woman and forcibly raping them.

Women nearly unconscious on hotel beds are often quite willing to be raped, so I understand his confusion

("Forcibly" is redundant in the above sentence. If there isn't consent then it's rape, simple as)

girl who meets up drunkenly with random bloke on street and agrees to go back to his hotel room has given consent.
imo

Then you are a clueless idiot!!!

wiggso wrote:

melonhead wrote:

girl who meets up drunkenly with random bloke on street and agrees to go back to his hotel room has given consent.
imo

What to him and whoever he decides to call up on the phone?

hence why evans got convicted.and matey didnt.

melonhead wrote:

SCIAG wrote:

RoyallyFcuked wrote:Who even knows what happened? Only himself and the girl (doubt the girl even remembers). He maintains his innocence and I'd say there's at least as much chance that he is telling the truth as there is her. Its not really fair for us to say.

This isn't a case of his word against hers. His own account, as well as Clayton McDonald's, are what has done him in.

Probably thought she could make money out of him or something.

Except she's actively avoided doing so?

He could have misjudged her and the situation. It's a bit different to attacking a woman and forcibly raping them.

Women nearly unconscious on hotel beds are often quite willing to be raped, so I understand his confusion

("Forcibly" is redundant in the above sentence. If there isn't consent then it's rape, simple as)

girl who meets up drunkenly with random bloke on street and agrees to go back to his hotel room has given consent.
imo

Oooooh, debatable, controversial Brendy.

Martin41 wrote:

melonhead wrote:


girl who meets up drunkenly with random bloke on street and agrees to go back to his hotel room has given consent.
imo

Then you are a clueless idiot!!!

the account of events screams consent being tacitly given to evans' mate.
the judge and judy agree with me, hence why he wasnt convicted

melonhead wrote:

wiggso wrote:

melonhead wrote:

girl who meets up drunkenly with random bloke on street and agrees to go back to his hotel room has given consent.
imo

What to him and whoever he decides to call up on the phone?

hence why evans got convicted.and matey didnt.

I'll make it really simple for you

Meeting up drunkenly with random bloke on street and agreeing to go back to his hotel room does not equal consent
Being in a hotel room does not equal consent
Being in bed with bloke does not equal consent
Being naked in bed with bloke does not equal consent

Giving consent equals consent.

It's easy when you think about it...clue is in the words used in the sentence.

im not talking legally. im talking in reality.

i have never asked consent for sex.at no point in my entire life have i paused just before entry and asked- is it definitely and legally ok to continue.
consent is implicit in a persons actions and responses.

she consented to sleep with cheds friend. it was teh bit where ched turned it into a threesome/gangbang that she objected to, and rightly so

She hasn't really given consent to sexual intercourse by merely agreeing to go back to a hotel room Brendy though has she?

The bloke might fancy his chances or believe a sexual encounter was on the cards and would probably be right in most cases but the woman might have a different reason for going back to the hotel room. Tiredness, wanting to use the bathroom, for instance.

You're probably right about the reason for the jury decision though. Clearly there was some discourse or connection made between the defendant who was found not guilty and the girl. Such niceties of social interaction as there were in the cleared defendant's case seem to be entirely missing from the Evans narrative.

melonhead wrote: i have never asked consent for sex.at no point in my entire life have i paused just before entry and asked- is it definitely and legally ok to continue.

RAPIST

melonhead wrote:

im not talking legally. im talking in reality.

i have never asked consent for sex.at no point in my entire life have i paused just before entry and asked- is it definitely and legally ok to continue.
consent is implicit in a persons actions and responses.

she consented to sleep with cheds friend. it was teh bit where ched turned it into a threesome/gangbang that she objected to, and rightly so

Keep looking to the heavens if you like, it doesn't add anything to your posts.
Women have the option of changing their minds, legally and in reality.
Are you saying that if a woman goes back to a hotel, she cannot change her mind as she has already given consent in the act of going back? No!
So going back to a hotel room is not consent.

In this case the other guy got off as due to all the evidence given the jury found him not guilty, fine, he is not guilty.
But that decision does not change the fact that agreeing to go to a hotel back is not consent. Women have the right to change their minds...always.

It's not right Brendy that it was the threesome or gang bang that she objected to. In fact the woman could not remember anything about what happened.

When it transpired that she had had sex with both men she and the CPS were of the opinion that she was in no condition to give consent to sexual intercourse with either of them, the later verdicts of the jury notwithstanding.

the jury verdict is definitely withstanding.

melonhead wrote:the jury verdict is definitely withstanding.

I'm sure the defense had more to say than simply "she agreed to go back to his hotel" but if it makes you happy to think that then fine.

There's no reasoning with him, wiggso.

The thing about consent is that for guilt to be proved, I think it has be shown that the person didn't have consent, or at least could not prove they had the basis to reasonably think they had consent. I would presume (and I haven't read everything I will admit) the jury decided, given whatever happened between them before they entered the hotel, that McDonald had reasonable cause to believe he had consent, Or they may have decided that the prosecution had not been able to prove that that McDonald had no cause to believe the sex was not consensual. Either way he is not guilty. Then we come round to Mr Evans. Here it seems the jury decided that as Evans had not been involved with whatever intimate aspects had taken place before they had intercourse, there was no reason to think that Evans had any right to believe that the girl had consented to sexual intercourse. If someone is flat out drunk on the bed, I don't think you are ever going to be able to persuade someone that consent was provided.

The 'there but for the grace of god' argument does not apply here. If you hooked up with a girl in a club and you both got drunk and had sex, the charge of rape would have to pass the test that you did not have a reasonable expectation that consent was given. The circumstances of everything that occurred would be taken into account. Where you are likely to find yourself in trouble is if she is blind drunk and you aren't, and you engage in intercourse. You would then obviously be in a position of taking advantage (whatever she may say at the time, and irrespective of you being a scumbag), in which case you should have no complaint if you find yourself in hot water. And let's not forget in this case, it wasn't about what you and she did, it was about the fact that one of your mates let himself into the room and had sex with her after you did.

I really can't see much difference in knowingly taking advantage of someone who is drunk, and slipping someone a rohypnol, pretty much the same result.

Brendy has had a shocker on this thread.

wiggso wrote:

melonhead wrote:the jury verdict is definitely withstanding.

I'm sure the defense had more to say than simply "she agreed to go back to his hotel" but if it makes you happy to think that then fine.

It does.
Excellent

melonhead wrote:

im not talking legally. im talking in reality.

i have never asked consent for sex.at no point in my entire life have i paused just before entry and asked- is it definitely and legally ok to continue.
consent is implicit in a persons actions and responses.

she consented to sleep with cheds friend. it was teh bit where ched turned it into a threesome/gangbang that she objected to, and rightly so

Very good point. I dont reckon Wiggs knows you arent supposed to ask for consent upon entry

I agree with Brendy here. It's a given that when you go back to some birds house or she comes back to yours that there is a chance of getting some action.

I have actually got the right hump with birds who haven't put out after leading me on......