Indeed, the decision to drink having driven is unreasonable, its sufficient to demonstrate intent, because you drove to a pub / bar and ordered a drink.

The key to a defense around this, is 'reasonable'. Its not reasonable to assume that someone who drove to a pub did not also intend to drink.

If your drink had been spiked, and that took you over the limit and you could demonstrate that had occurred, you wouldn't be guilty of a crime (no guilty mind).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Yes...but as a "role model" he should probably stick to what he is good at. And that isn't establishing the veracity of legal arguments and law of the land.

In which case wouldn't she have had a better case, i.e. than being drunk of her own consent. Bear in mind she didn't met Evans until after she was in the room and had sex with Donaldson.

It not about consent, she was incapable of consent. Its about whether it is reasonable of the defendents to believe she had consented. For Actus and Mens rae to be qualified, 'guilty mind' must be demonstrated - If Donaldson's actions were those of a reasonable man then he is innocent (or at least not guilty because its not beyond reasonable doubt for him to have believed consent was genuine.

See above.

No one doubts she said yes, what is in doubt is that her capacity to reliably give consent was diminished. Which means McDonald and Evans are required to at least demonstrate they believed consent (ie your word isn't just enough).

No the prosecution demonstrated that she was not capable of giving reasonable consent. Her own statement was that she did not remember the events in question.

She was, by the definition of the offence, and the requirements of british law, raped by Ched Evans, who had sex without her consent, and could show no basis on which it was reasonable for him to believe she could give consent.

It safe enough that his appeal was turned down at the first hurdle because it offered no new evidence that spoke to the question of the conviction (Ironically if he said he didn't have sex with her, he'd have been found not guilty - as there was no evidence of sexual activity between Evans and the victim, other than his and Donaldsons statements.

Certainty in convictions is very rare, even where confessions of guilt have been produced, there have been cases where people were found to have been not guilty.

Even in the most nailed on conviction, there must exist a tiny chance that its not valid.

Its probable beyond reason that Evans raped that girl, and that he went to that room specifically to have sex with the victim, a woman he had never met or had any grounds to assume wanted to have sex with him.

It is not reasonable by his actions to think he could, as a reasonable man, have believed she had consented.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I don't think it is reasonable. You previously argued this...

"McDonald could reasonably be said to have believed he had consent by the actions prior to sex (i.e meeting a girl, having a few drinks and going back to the hotel). Evans doesn't have that capacity."

Which relies on the false notion that McDonald spent some time drinking with her first rather than the actual sequence of the events which saw them meet randomly in the street and immediately share a taxi back to the hotel.

The significance of this is that suggesting that McDonald had consent because he met her when she was in a more sober state and then spent time drinking with her is incredibly different to suggesting he had consent just because she agreed to get in the taxi, at which point she was as intoxicated as she was going to get that night. So why should her word and consent be any more believable in the street than it would be in a hotel room half an hour later? On both occasions she was meeting them for the first time.

She herself admitted to remembering nothing from the point she left the club she was in until the following morning so can't explicitly claim that she didn't say yes to Evans. She also performed oral sex on him before they had full sex so she wasn't unconscious either which would have been a different story. I still see nothing to make me believe they shouldn't have both received the same verdict and frankly from what I've read I'm still leaning more towards innocent than guilty.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold...

He is trying to preserve / continue a very high-paying career as a football player. He has much more to gain than she does.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

[Link]

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold...