Ryan – Sorry, 140 Characters is not enough.

Update October 2016:
After a referral to the court of appeal by the criminal cases review commission, Evans has now been acquitted of the crime of rape. Whatever the rights or wrongs of that situation, in the eyes of the law, Evans is now innocent of the crime of rape. I leave the text below as a record of my thoughts on the case as it stood at the time of writing.



Ryan – sorry, twitter is not a suitable medium for the discussion you are trying to have. Before I start, you need to understand why what I write below may sound (to your ears) unreasonably harsh. Evans has been found guilty of rape in a court of law. Which means his victim is proven to be a victim. In a court of law. That means when you repeat slander against her, when you question the verdict that she went through hell to get, you are piling the abuse onto a woman (actually a teenager) who has already been abused in one of the worst ways possible. Harsh? believe me, It is gentle compared to what I felt like writing earlier today.

I give you right to reply via the comments below (which is much more than Team Evans give his victim by the way). However, that right is qualified. Any comments which discredit or smear the victim in ANY way will be deleted. Abuse will be deleted.

So to answer your tweets.

Ryan Mounsey @rdmounsey

@tonycollinet Firstly, having a different opinion than you doesn’t make me biased.

No, you are correct. What shows that you are biased, is the fact that you are prepared to disagree with the verdict reached by 12 independent people, while freely admitting that you haven’t seen all the evidence. That you are still prepared to do that, in spite of the fact that the evidence has been reviewed by 2 leave to appeal hearings, and 4 appeal judges, and judged so sound that leave to appeal was not even granted.


Ryan Mounsey @rdmounsey

@tonycollinet Further, we have seen some evidence that the jury have not relating to prior rape claims of the woman

This is the point at which I am struggling to control my anger. You are supposedly an intelligent chap. At least you are at university, studying a science based subject. Yet you are prepared to give credibility to the obvious lie of an obvious smear campaign directed against a proven rape victim, and you are prepared to repeat that smear. You claim there is evidence – I call bullshit. You have NOT ONE scrap of evidence to support that claim. You have simply seen it stated (By supporters of a rapist, I might add) and taken it at face value. Where is your critical thinking. As a scientist, you should be training to act on facts and evidence, not rumours and hearsay. Not even the team Evans website makes that claim, because even they know it has no validity. Above everything else, this statement proves your bias, and destroys any remaining credibility you may have had left.


Ryan Mounsey @rdmounsey

@tonycollinet and you said yourself that you disagree with the juries interpretation of the proceedings and in this we agree

I said that I would disagree with the idea of doubt regarding Claytons “reasonable belief” in consent. Bear in mind this is in a judicial system that requires a jury to be “sure” of guilt if they are going to convict. That puts a heavy bias into the system to acquit rather than convict. It is a completely different thing to doubt an aquittal then to doubt a conviction. By definition an acquittal comes with doubt whereas a conviction comes with surety.


Ryan Mounsey @rdmounsey

@tonycollinet we solely have different views on how the questionable interpretation of the law has affected the verdict.

No, we don’t. The law is clear, the evidence has been tried in court, and been found to prove guilt. We differ, in that I am trusting the judgement of 12 jurors, 4 judges and three courts, and you are disagreeing with all of them on the basis of supposition and hearsay, not having seen the evidence. On the evidence you have seen, your only reasonable scientific way forward is either to trust the courts, or keep an open mind. You have no basis on which to question the verdict.


Ryan Mounsey @rdmounsey

@tonycollinet your right I am a SUFC fan and I admit that this has caused me to take a greater level of interest in the case however, I dont believe this has led me to become totally blinkered…

Sorry, I disagree for the reasons stated above.


Ryan Mounsey @rdmounsey

@tonycollinet ….which is why I am trying to have a discussion rather than resorting to slating you for your beliefs and trying to talk about the facts of the case that we have available to us

The only facts we have available to us, which actually are facts, are 1: that Evans has been found guilty in a court of law, and been refused leave to appeal twice. And 2: the legal summary of the appeal hearing here:

Those facts don’t leave much room for discussion.


Ryan Mounsey @rdmounsey

@tonycollinet and I’m a pretty big fan of women too, does this mean that my supposed SUFC bias is cancelled out?

Then you should be pretty ashamed of yourself. As a direct result  of you questioning the verdict, and slandering the victim on twitter, every single one of those women you claim to be a fan of is slightly less safe, with a slightly higher risk of being raped. You are harming all rape victims, and making life easier for rapists.


10 thoughts on “Ryan – Sorry, 140 Characters is not enough.

  1. I’d just like to know in what way you believed that I abused the victim? Basically any viewpoint that opposes the conviction will, in its nature, discredit her. Therefore, there is little I can write which you will not term as abuse unless I adopt your point of view.

    If you genuinely believed that I have abused her then it would surely serve your interests to leave it on, as it would totally discredit my argument and show me to be an idiot.

    Don’t worry about the email, I saved a copy. I’ll publish it elsewhere if you are unwilling to publish it on here.

    • Your abuse comes when you repeat lies said about her (regarding past behaviour) for which you have not one shred of evidence. If I stated that Evans had raped 50 women before, and got all my followers to repeat it, it wouldn’t make it true would it? So why do you believe the lies of Evans supporters, REPEAT THEM, and then act all confused as to why it’s not acceptable. Don’t bother to reply, you are no longer welcome here.

  2. I received a wall of text, by way of a reply, in a comment from Ryan – unfortunately he failed to read the conditions of his right to reply, namely that …..” Any comments which discredit or smear the victim in ANY way will be deleted. Abuse will be deleted.”

    Consequently his reply will not be shown here.

    Ryan – if you want your text back to edit and resubmit, leave an email address in a comment. (I’ll delete it without publishing)

  3. While I disagree with a number of the points you have made in the above, there is one which stands out to me. I cannot see how anyone can say that this law is clear. There is no denying that the victim had been drinking alcohol and that Ched had sex with her. What the conviction boils down to is whether the woman was ‘too drunk to consent’.

    Ignoring this individual case, and thinking about the law in general, I would like to ask you, seen as you believe the law to be clear, where is the line between someone being in a fit state to consent and someone being too drunk to do so? Having sex with someone who has drunk alcohol is not against the law. Having sex with someone who is ‘drunk’ is not against the law. So at what point does having sex with someone who is drunk become illegal? The law itself is unsatisfactory because it is unclear; there is no set, measurable point when someone becomes too drunk to consent.

    I would also like to raise additional hypothetical situations where being drunk might affect your ability to consent. A casino for instance. Do you believe that a casino taking money off a drunken individual should be convicted of a crime because the gambler is ‘too drunk to consent to giving away their money’?

    • The law is clear, in that rape is clearly defined, AND it is clearly recognised that a woman can be too drunk (or otherwise intoxicated) to give a legal consent. It’s also recognised that this can be long before unconsciousness.

      You are correct in saying there is no fixed definition of how to identify this state. None of us display gauges with a “too drunk to consent” line. This is why we have courts to judge such things. I’ve written about it here: http://infrequent.collinsho.me/?p=15

      Your casino comment is irrelevant (and slightly daft to my eye) There is no relationship or valid comparison between rape and gambling.

      • The area between having a drink and unconsciousness is a very big one, and I find it scary to think that someone’s life can be ruined on the interpretation of 12 legally untrained, randomly appointed members of the public on their perception of when someone is too drunk to consent, with only video evidence and eye-witness accounts as a measurement of her drunkenness. No doubt, you randomly select 12 people who would have deemed the girl in a fit state to consent. This is the basis of our legal system, but with this law more than any other the conviction comes down solely to the moral beliefs of the jurors, as there is no guideline as to when someone becomes too drunk to consent. I know you have ‘answered’ this on the blog that you linked onto my previous comment, but there is no way that you can deny that this law is unsatisfactory because of its vagueness. I can guarantee to you that a huge proportion of the male population would be considered as rapists by the same 12 people as convicted Ched Evans.

        You will probably pick out of the above that I said ‘ruin someone’s life’ with respect to the ‘criminal’ who committed rape, and will turn this onto the affect on the victim. In every other sub-type of rape I would not use this phrase with the criminal, and I am as just against what I perceive to be rape as any other man or woman (including yourself). Yet this law is not like what people usually perceive to be rape. The ‘criminal’ does not force himself onto the woman, and the sex is consensual, and so I do not believe that it should be considered in the same bracket of rape as a man who has violently forced himself onto a woman against her will.

        As a side-note, have you considered that with this law a man and a woman can be simultaneously raping each other, as they can both come out the next morning and claim that they were too drunk to be able to consent?

        Personally I do not feel that the casino comment is irrelevant or daft. If, in the eyes of the legal system, you can be too drunk to consent to sex, surely you can be too drunk to consent to other things, such as giving money away.

        • I would just like to clarify that I’m not arguing one way or another about the conviction of Ched Evans as he may well have been guilty of rape with the law as it stands. The points I am making are about the law in general, and whether it is a satisfactory one to have in our legal system.

        • As you state, most of your questions are answered in my post linked above. I’ll not repeat it all here, but will restate one or two points.

          I don’t think you need to worry too much about a jury. They’ll be given a lot of guidance by the court regarding how to judge the case, and they are fully instructed to be “sure of guilt”. This makes juries notoriously unwilling to convict – especially so in rape cases. Evidence normally has to be quite compelling.

          The law as it is, is essential for two reasons. Firstly it is needed to protect women from “pre-meditated rapists” who would otherwise simply use alcohol to render their victim helpless, and then claim later that she consented. At this point it would be impossible to convict. Secondly – there are too many men who think it is acceptable to use alcohol as a way to get women to have sex with them. Basically if a woman doesn’t want sex with a man sober, and he uses alcohol to get her drunk enough to change her mind (actually to not know her mind), then that is rape. Note that this is different situation from where she might want to sober, but then can herself use alcohol to loosen inhibitions.

          You are right about what I’ll say. There are far more women’s lives ruined by rape, than men’s by “non pre meditatedly” raping. You say that the man does not force himself on the woman, but that is in effect exactly what he is doing. He is recklessly failing to take care to get proper informed and valid consent, but is pressing on anyway. The force comes from the fact that he is allowing alcohol to take away her capacity to refuse. It is the same reason sex with an under-age girl is rape, even if she thinks she wants it. She does not have the capacity to make that decision.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.