Translate

Showing posts with label consent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consent. Show all posts

Sunday, 23 November 2014

The point not made or not taken at the trial of Chad Evans and the obviously perverse verdict of the jury

'When he came to pass sentence the judge said: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

That accurately reflected the way in which the verdict should be interpreted. No force had been used on the complainant and no injury had been caused in the course of the rape. But the long-term psychological consequences to her could not be ignored. The judge took the view that they were not lessened by the fact that she had no direct recollection of the events.'

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

Why did the jury decide that black footballer was not guilty of rape but that the white footballer was?

If she was too drunk to give consent to Ched Evans, was she also too drunk to give consent to Clayton McDonald?

But Clayton McDonald was acquitted.

It is possible that she could have consented to sex only with McDonald and not Evans, but it was Evans' claim that he did obtain her consent by doing as she asked, ie "lick her out", which he did.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ched-evans-and-clayton-mcdonald-rape-798633

Evans told the court he watched them having sex for about "10/20 seconds" and then McDonald "asked" if his mate could "get involved".

"Then she looked at me and said yes," Evans said.

The footballer then said he carried on watching "for a minute or two" before McDonald got up to close the bedroom curtains, as there was "giggling" coming from the window, where Evans' brother and a friend were trying to watch from.

Evans said that when McDonald got up the girl asked him to perform oral sex on her, which he did.

He said: "I performed oral sex on her for maybe two or three minutes and then she turned over on all fours and then asked to be f***** basically".

He said the girl asked him to "f*** her harder".

"They were the words she was using," he said.

Evans then said they changed position so he was facing her while McDonald "watched for a bit" before leaving.

"As he left the room we stopped having sex," Evans told the jury.

http://chedevans.com/key-and-undisputed-facts

Having obtained the keycard, Ched walked down the corridor and entered Room 14. From this point onwards it should be remembered that the only evidence as to what happened in Room 14 came from the accounts given by the two accused men who were in the room and the night porter who was listening at the door outside. The complainant claimed that she could not remember anything of what happened in the room.

On entering the room Ched said that he did not know what to expect but he quickly realised that his friend, Clayton, was engaged in sexual intercourse with a girl. In his evidence he stated that the door clunked behind him and this caused both Clayton and the complainant to turn around and to look at him. He said that he made direct eye contact with the complainant. At this point according to the evidence of both Clayton and Ched the question of whether Ched could “join in” was asked of the complainant, they both said that she replied with a positive “yeah”. Both of the accused thought that the other had asked the question but both agreed that the question was asked.

Whilst this was happening, outside, Ched’s brother and his friend had gone to the window of Room 14. They were fooling around, giggling and laughing (caught on the soundtrack) and attempting to film on a mobile phone what was happening in Room 14. They made two short clips but did not obtain any discernible footage.

According to the testimony of Ched, he watched his friend having sex for a minute or two and then, after Clayton had moved away from the bed, he engaged in sexual activity himself with the complainant on the basis that she had agreed to his participation by replying “yeah” to the request of whether or not he could join in.

Ched stated that the complainant asked him to perform oral sex upon her by telling him to “lick me out”. He did so and then followed this act by having intercourse with her. This was all corroborated by Clayton. Both men stated in evidence that the complainant was verbally encouraging Ched to have more vigorous sex with her by calling out to him on numerous occasions to “F**k me harder”. Both men also said that she was in control of the situation and activity as she was changing the sexual positions herself. (It is worth noting that the complainant stated in her police interviews that “licking out” is the phrase she understands to mean male on female oral sex).

Clayton decided to leave the room. He went and sat in the reception area. He spoke to the night porter and requested that he ‘keep an eye out’ for the girl in Room 14. Unbeknownst to Clayton, the night porter had only minutes earlier been listening at the door of Room 14 because he was concerned that the occupancy of Room 14 was more than the hotel rules allowed. The night porter stated in Court that he had heard the sounds of people having sex – when pushed on this he said that he had heard both female and male voices “squealing, panting and groaning”. He also said that he heard a male voice ask for oral sex in a “playful” manner.

In his evidence, Ched stated that when his friend had left the room he had suddenly become nervous that his girlfriend may ring him. He spoke to Clayton on the phone who was by now outside of the hotel. He said he stopped having sex with the complainant and decided to join his friend outside. He left the complainant on the bed who he said huffed in disgust that he was leaving her and pulled the covers over as if to go to sleep. Ched left the room and then left the building by the fire exit.


McDonald confirmed that he was in the room while Evans complied with this request so Evans' testimony was CORROBORATED.

The complainant herself could not say one way or another if this happened because her case was that she had no memory of that evening AT ALL.

Now, why would the jury COMPLETELY IGNORE this point?

The defence either did not make that point or it was not taken.

 If the defence lawyers did not make that point they must have been incompetent or negligent.

If the point was made but not taken then the judge was guilty of clear bias against the defendant.

Basically, the complainant was saying that she was not the sort of woman who would accompany a strange black man she has just met after falling over drunk in a kebab shop and then have sex with him and his friend, one after another, in the same room.

If that was what she was claiming then her sexual history should have been examined more closely.

Also, if she had not known they were professional footballers, would she have called the cops?

http://chedevans.com/key-and-undisputed-facts
According to her evidence, the complainant awoke on Monday **th ***** 201* in the Premier Inn totally unaware as to how she had got there. Having searched for her bag and mobile phone she then proceeded to Reception. Her mother picked her up and took her to her friend’s house. Later that day she returned to work. At the end of her shift at 11pm she went to the reception of the Premier Inn and requested to see CCTV footage to see, she claimed, if she could find out how she got there earlier that morning. She did not get to see the CCTV footage but was told by the receptionist that the room had been booked and was occupied by footballers.




Why was the complainant's previous sexual history NOT admitted?
at 10 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, 13 April 2013

A prostitute talks about her attitude to work

http://titsandsass.com/getting-away-with-hating-it-consent-in-the-context-of-sex-work/

Is it rape or just theft if you have sex with a prostitute without paying?

I would say it depends. If you made her think you would pay but ran off without paying after enjoying services, then that would be theft and obtaining services by deception.

If you had sex with her knowing that she did not want to have sex with you at any price then it would be rape.

The prostitute blogger wonders why her clients appear unfazed by her lack of enthusiasm.

I have never hired a prostitute but I imagine the attractions of doing so would be  the power one feels when think "She doesn't even have to fancy me but knows she will have to have sex with me or she won't get paid."

This logic of this power of obtaining consent or quiescence would extend to rape, whose purpose is to enforce submission without consent.  Rape would be how a man would assert power over a woman or even over another man or men, if he forces him or them to watch.

Some clients might want a "girlfriend" experience, or they might wish for something called a "rape" experience. The punter is the piper, and he calls the tune.

What is saddening is that a woman as highly educated as this woman should be reduced to prostitution and blogging about it.

Let us women be honest, even chaste wives: sex can be a bit like work sometimes, something to tick off on one's list of things to do.

If we women are to be in the business of providing sexual services and bringing up the next generation, then let us do it well while making it as easy on ourselves as possible.  Surely, it would be easier on ourselves to have only one partner who wants our sexual services exclusively in the long term who will provide for us and our children, than have to put up with a stream of sub-alpha punters with dirty fingernails?  

Is this what happens to female graduates then, when , instead of studying for a useless degree, they could have married  a decent man and be bringing up children who would be a credit to them and their choice of partner , and by extension their reproductive  choice?

Feminism has a lot to answer for, has it not?   Because of Feminism, there are no decent men left.  Dirt cheap slut sex has utterly corrupted the morals of the men of the West, who now think and talk and behave like women, and do hypocrisy and cowardice just as well as the worst of their women.

Feminism tricked this woman into doing a degree that turned out to be financially unproductive.

Feminism forced this woman into prostitution.

Yet this woman is used by feminists like Helena Horton https://twitter.com/helenashead, Deputy Editor of The Yorker (sponsored by Deloittes) to promote feminism http://theyorker.co.uk/features/13651-i-would-be-a-feminist- and pornography http://theyorker.co.uk/news/campus/13525-show-and-tell-women-s-committee

So now we have the evil, stupidity, perversity and masochism of feminism and its adherents displayed for all to see: legs wide open in all her obscene glory.

at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Mark Parker entertains doubts

26:00  Psyop is just another word for state propaganda. 35:39 @DigitalGnosis ​​I dont believe Homer was a person Homer was a pagan. There wi...