Ched Evans

Truth, I hope when the alien overlords return they don't read celebrity twitter feeds or youtube comment threads, cos they will prob just nuke the planet and be done with it

I'm sure there is absolutely no correlation to those defending a convicted rapist and those that support a political party that have a track record of protecting rapists and being actively hostile to women.

Sure that is just pure coincidence.

dunno what you mean by that one What do you make of what they're doing in America, kelv? They're changing it so that if you have sex with a bird, uv done a rape unless she specifically says "Yes, I do want to have sex with you please". It's to address situations like this one:

[video=youtube_share;MZ1lc6KASWg]

It's a real head scratcher, innit bear?

Based on this thread we should just scrap 400 years of legal framework and judge people (either way) based on heresay/newspaper articles and message board precis.

The jury sat through x days of arguments to make their decision as will any appeal. Best to leave it at that.

I started off my first post on this thread by saying I wasn't going to comment on his guilt or otherwise . Only the jury sat and heard the full facts and only they are in a position to judge his guilt.

 

However, there is an important principle at stake here. Once offenders have served their time should they be allowed to play football? If you watched QT you would have seen the ridiculous argument that they shouldn't earn a lot of money and shouldn't be allowed to play in front of thousands. Why? , and who decides how much they can earn and how many people they can plays in front of? If a football club are willing to pay him and their supporters are willing to watch him, why shouldn't he earn a living.

 

Taking the personality out of it, somebody who is appealing their sentence is hardly going to admit their guilt are they? Unless you have a law that only ex convicts who admit guilt can work ,its irrelevant whether he admits it or not. I always thought that admitting guilt was part of early release, but obviously its not.

That's an "important principle" to you? Seriously?

Okay then footballers. Rape who you want, as much as you want. They'll always be a game for you, and football fans like you will swoon over you like some martyr. We love a rogue, don't we eh?

Kicking a football outranks anything you might ever do in the real world. If you're good enough, you're rapey enough.

I love "principles", me.

Solicitors rules of conduct are present not because of the position solicitors hold in the legal profession, but because of the position they and the profession have in society. The same applies to other professionals.

 

Solicitors and the legal profession have responsibilities and standards to uphold. Ditto doctors, MP's, teachers and pretty much all professionals.

 

Footballers are professionals. They too have standards to maintain and cannot expect to pursue their profession having committed rape when other professionals cannot.

 

His lack of remorse is a huge factor. If you can't accept you've done wrong then you can't be rehabilitated. Simple.

Perhaps he either did, or genuinely believes he did, nothing wrong. Its naive to think that every jury trial results in a correct verdict, in fact I know of two cases people close to me have sat on as jurors which they are convinced ended in wrongful convictions.

not while Internet fan-boys protest his innocence, bring forward their snippet-fuelled "well she was pi ss ed anyway" defence, and assuming he's going to be cleared eventually because he is now complaining to the CCRC. There's your bandwagon right there.

Wow. Who exactly has said he is innocent, apart from him? And who has assumed he is going to be cleared eventually? There is some sensible questioning of this case going on, because like it or not, some aspects of the conviction are hard to understand (as a minimum). Not just male football fans are saying this. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11226209/Ched-Evans-Sorry-but-all-rapes-are-not-the-same.html. Similarly, the question of what happens to Evans now is far from clear cut and is generating lots of debate, like this thread. But as others have posted, just raising any questions on this matter seem to mark you down in some eyes as some kind of apologist for rapists, which is disgraceful

Perhaps he either did, or genuinely believes he did, nothing wrong. Its naive to think that every jury trial results in a correct verdict, in fact I know of two cases people close to me have sat on as jurors which they are convinced ended in wrongful convictions.

It is naive to think that people who fight to clear their name actually believe they are innocent.

Remember, twelve jurors, were satisfied that he was guilty. The court of appeal did not consider the verdict to be unsafe.

Despite that it staggers me that people on a forum think that a bloke who wants to pursue a lucrative career could be innocent just cos he says he is. Unbelievable.

It is naive to think that people who fight to clear their name actually believe they are innocent.

 

Remember, twelve jurors, were satisfied that he was guilty. The court of appeal did not consider the verdict to be unsafe.

 

Despite that it staggers me that people on a forum think that a bloke who wants to pursue a lucrative career could be innocent just cos he says he is. Unbelievable.

I don't know if he is or not but he clearly thinks he is. It's not outside the realms of possibility that he actually is innocent, it's not the first time nor the last that something like that has happened.

Look at any woman that speaks out about petty much anything, or makes any kind of feminist stance. You can bet your life on her receiving death rape threats. Keep defending it though.

Pretty sure he wasnt defending it, just pointing out that there are a multitude of weirdo's on social media and especially twitter.

 

 

 

Despite that it staggers me that people on a forum think that a bloke who wants to pursue a lucrative career could be innocent just cos he says he is. Unbelievable.

It's naive to boil it down to that one point. In my mind there are three:

1) Is Ched Evans guilty? Yes, that's what the legal system found and no amount of journalism or internet sleuthery is going to change that.

2) Are all rapes equal? Yes they are in the eyes of the law (although not in the length of sentence). Personally this is an area I think should change. Regardless of Evans' particular case there's a world of difference between a habitual predator and a drunk teenager's "mistake".

3) Should every sentence be a life sentence? There's not one of us that hasn't done something that could have turns out differently if the dice fell differently. If you get punished and do the time, shouldn't we wipe the slate and let people work again (provided there's no trust / vulnerability issues). There was a bloke on the radio a few days ago who was refused a job for a single criminal record (burglarly) 40 years ago. Clearly a crazy situation.

Anyway, up the Saints

So, how in a case such as this can it be proven that the victim was drunk to the point whereby they were unable to give consent?

I can only repeat what I have said before. The police have to be convinced. The CPS reviewing lawyer has to be convinced. The jury has to be convinced. They all were.

I don't know if he is or not but he clearly thinks he is. It's not outside the realms of possibility that he actually is innocent, it's not the first time nor the last that something like that has happened.

The thing is that the prisons are full of people who are "innocent." In his own mind he clearly is. In the eyes of the Criminal Justice System he is a convicted rapist.

Have you heard of Criminal Case Review investigations being fastracked before? I understand that this is highly unusual.

No I haven't but that is not to say it cant be done if it is in the public interest.

The thing is that the prisons are full of people who are "innocent." In his own mind he clearly is. In the eyes of the Criminal Justice System he is a convicted rapist.

All I'm saying that the criminal justice system isn't infallible. That's not to say he is innocent in this case, simply that the possibility exists for a miscarriage of justice and the public should bear that in mind when looking at all cases.

I can only repeat what I have said before. The police have to be convinced. The CPS reviewing lawyer has to be convinced. The jury has to be convinced. They all were.

Look at any woman that speaks out about petty much anything, or makes any kind of feminist stance. You can bet your life on her receiving death rape threats. Keep defending it though.

Solicitors rules of conduct are present not because of the position solicitors hold in the legal profession, but because of the position they and the profession have in society. The same applies to other professionals.

 

Solicitors and the legal profession have responsibilities and standards to uphold. Ditto doctors, MP's, teachers and pretty much all professionals.

 

Footballers are professionals. They too have standards to maintain and cannot expect to pursue their profession having committed rape when other professionals cannot.

 

His lack of remorse is a huge factor. If you can't accept you've done wrong then you can't be rehabilitated. Simple.

It isn't you are right, but it is robust. Rape cases are very difficult to bring to court, So much so that the CPS has specialist units to deal with them, A number never see a court because the evidence is so flimsy and there is not a realistic prospect of conviction. For this one to succeed a number of people had to be convinced of his guilt. None us were in court to hear the case for the defence and the prosecution. None of us were party to the deliberations of the jury. A lot of people have been convinced that he his guilty. Every contested case that goes to court has a defence case and a prosecution case and every defendant is innocent until proved guilty. Unless conviction are quashed the defendants remain guilty. If this conviction is overturned at some point Evans can rightly say he was not guilty of rape. Until that time, no matter what the columnist from the Telegraph or you and I think, the bloke is guilty of rape.

So if he showed remorse you think he should be allowed to play professional football again?

This point can be argued all day long but at the end of the day the only people who can make that call are his current employers or any future employers. Evans hasn't covered himself in glory since his release but that should not be the issue. He is free to work again but do people want someone like him working for them? That is their choice.

It isn't you are right, but it is robust. Rape cases are very difficult to bring to court, So much so that the CPS has specialist units to deal with them, A number never see a court because the evidence is so flimsy and there is not a realistic prospect of conviction. For this one to succeed a number of people had to be convinced of his guilt. None us were in court to hear the case for the defence and the prosecution. None of us were party to the deliberations of the jury. A lot of people have been convinced that he his guilty. Every contested case that goes to court has a defence case and a prosecution case and every defendant is innocent until proved guilty. Unless conviction are quashed the defendants remain guilty. If this conviction is overturned at some point Evans can rightly say he was not guilty of rape. Until that time, no matter what the columnist from the Telegraph or you and I think, the bloke is guilty of rape.

Yes, I know he was convicted, I was asking what the parameters and definitions are.

What do you mean? You want to know exactly what the legal definition of rape is? And why do you get so arsey to people in your posts? You come across as a very angry person.

This point can be argued all day long but at the end of the day the only people who can make that call are his current employers or any future employers. Evans hasn't covered himself in glory since his release but that should not be the issue. He is free to work again but do people want someone like him working for them? That is their choice.

What do you mean? You want to know exactly what the legal definition of rape is? And why do you get so arsey to people in your posts? You come across as a very angry person.

Just repeating a fact that we all know and agree (that he is convicted) doesn't add anything to the discussion.

It isn't you are right, but it is robust. Rape cases are very difficult to bring to court, So much so that the CPS has specialist units to deal with them, A number never see a court because the evidence is so flimsy and there is not a realistic prospect of conviction. For this one to succeed a number of people had to be convinced of his guilt. None us were in court to hear the case for the defence and the prosecution. None of us were party to the deliberations of the jury. A lot of people have been convinced that he his guilty. Every contested case that goes to court has a defence case and a prosecution case and every defendant is innocent until proved guilty. Unless conviction are quashed the defendants remain guilty. If this conviction is overturned at some point Evans can rightly say he was not guilty of rape. Until that time, no matter what the columnist from the Telegraph or you and I think, the bloke is guilty of rape.

So basically, what you're saying is that you accept the legal systems delivery of a guilty verdict, and that the law should be upheld. That's fine, although personally I have reservations about it due to either direct or indirect involvement from a jurors point of view. (If it was myself on the jury, obviously I wouldn't be allowed to discuss that.)

What irritates me is that having blithely accepted the prosecution aspect of the legal system to be infallible and just, people ignore the rest of it. The law decided on his verdict and punishment, and the law decided when he should be released. The law does not prohibit him from subsequently pursuing any particular career, and the law does not say that any potential employer should be prohibited from employing him. If you accept our legal system, then accept the whole of it. Too many people are popping up and cherry-picking the bits they agree with while ignoring the bits they don't.

So if he showed remorse you think he should be allowed to play professional football again?

Nope.

Is that a response to me? I haven't and I'm not sure if anyone else on this thread has, stated that he's not guilty. Just having an interesting discussion on one of the more grey, complex areas of the law. It is an interesting case I'm sure you'd agree, that Evans was found guilty, but McDonald not-guilty.

It is an interesting case I agree. In any failed prosecution the Crown Advocate has to give reasons why and I would love to know why he thought Evans mate got off. I'd also love to read the case file as they always contain far more information that reach the papers.

So you wouldn't hold it against Sheff Utd and be critical of them if they chose to continue to employee him?

What I think doesn't matter does it? I am not going to stop going to their games. I am not going to stop buying replica shirts. It would just be my opinion.

Just repeating a fact that we all know and agree (that he is convicted) doesn't add anything to the discussion.

I think it does. There are some on here who seem to think that he is innocent. Whatever anyone thinks of the verdict, he is still guilty of rape as things stand.

What I think doesn't matter does it? I am not going to stop going to their games. I am not going to stop buying replica shirts. It would just be my opinion.

So basically, what you're saying is that you accept the legal systems delivery of a guilty verdict, and that the law should be upheld. That's fine, although personally I have reservations about it due to either direct or indirect involvement from a jurors point of view. (If it was myself on the jury, obviously I wouldn't be allowed to discuss that.)

 

What irritates me is that having blithely accepted the prosecution aspect of the legal system to be infallible and just, people ignore the rest of it. The law decided on his verdict and punishment, and the law decided when he should be released. The law does not prohibit him from subsequently pursuing any particular career, and the law does not say that any potential employer should be prohibited from employing him. If you accept our legal system, then accept the whole of it. Too many people are popping up and cherry-picking the bits they agree with while ignoring the bits they don't.

The law also doesn't say he has a divine right to go back to the precise same job he did before.

And the law doesn't stop Jessica Ennis, SUFC sponsors and supporters making it difficult/impossible for him to get a contract there. Or other people connected with other clubs doing the same in the future to stop him signing for them, too.

So no cherry picking going on, and do do try and remember who the victim is here.

The law also doesn't say he has a divine right to go back to the precise same job he did before.

 

And the law doesn't stop Jessica Ennis, SUFC sponsors and supporters making it difficult/impossible for him to get a contract there. Or other people connected with other clubs doing the same in the future to stop him signing for them, too.

 

So no cherry picking going on, and do do try and remember who the victim is here.

Thats up to them, the law says we have free speech, they can say whatever they want within certain legal parameters. And the law does say that if he wants to go back to his former club and they want to employ him, there's nothing stopping that. Whether they or any other football club wish to employ him is up to them.

Consent issue a side, what sort of man goes off in the middle of the night off a back of a text from a mate claiming "he has a bird" in the belief that this "bird" who he has never met, seen or spoken to would automatically want to have sex with him and his mate and not only that, take two other mates along to film it?

What an utter cretin and I hope he never kicks a ball as a professional ever again.

Consent issue a side, what sort of man goes off in the middle of the night off a back of a text from a mate claiming "he has a bird" in the belief that this "bird" who he has never met, seen or spoken to would automatically want to have sex with him and his mate and not only that, take two other mates along to film it?

 

What an utter cretin and I hope he never kicks a ball as a professional ever again.

Sexual behaviour amongst the youth of today is staggering to me. My nephew (26) showed me a couple of phone apps recently, clicked a photo of a girl he'd never met, and immediately got a message back the text of which would be pointless trying to post on here due to the swear filter. Suffice it to say, he got laid an hour later.

Sexual behaviour amongst the youth of today is staggering to me. My nephew (26) showed me a couple of phone apps recently, clicked a photo of a girl he'd never met, and immediately got a message back the text of which would be pointless trying to post on here due to the swear filter. Suffice it to say, he got laid an hour later.

That's disgusting.

Which APP is this?

What do you make of what they're doing in America, kelv? They're changing it so that if you have sex with a bird, uv done a rape unless she specifically says "Yes, I do want to have sex with you please".

Crikey, it’s a long while since Mrs Stickman said anything like that to me … well, at least not when she’s been sober.

That's disgusting.

 

 

 

 

 

Which APP is this?

Not sure which of them came up with the goods WG, but one of them was called tinder.

Best of luck.

That's disgusting.

 

 

 

 

 

Which APP is this?

Tinder, I'll bet!

Nothing wrong with consensual sex. Very different from the topic bring discussed here...

Guy at work has 10 out of 10 conversion on his last Tinder dates.

Guy at work has 10 out of 10 conversion on his last Tinder dates.

What egg chasing rugger buggers get up to in their changing room has nothing to do with this thread!! ;-)

The law also doesn't say he has a divine right to go back to the precise same job he did before.

 

And the law doesn't stop Jessica Ennis, SUFC sponsors and supporters making it difficult/impossible for him to get a contract there. Or other people connected with other clubs doing the same in the future to stop him signing for them, too.

 

So no cherry picking going on, and do do try and remember who the victim is here.

Even if he does believe he did nothing wrong, there is no reason he can't come out and show some sort of remorse at how the situation has brought so much distress to the girl and her family.

It might not make him innocent still, but might be viewed by some a little more favourably.

At the end of the day Sheffield Utd have to look after the welfare of their club more so than the individual. Pretty sure all players must sign some sort of code of conduct contract relating to the image of the club, and his actions on that night (and since) aren't appropriate at all. Keeping on an average player who may or may not get back to the level he was a few years ago, or lose the goodwill of a majority of patrons and fans in Sheffield is a decision they will have to make, and in my mind he loses out, brought about by his own actions.

That's the whole point of this forum. To put across what you think. To state your opinion or ideas. It would be pointless and a bit boring if we just confirmed the facts and nothing else.

Ok for what it is worth I wouldn't want this guy playing for SFC.

Why are some of you lot so desperate to entertain the idea he is innocent? The guy was found guilty unanimously guilty in court. Do those who are pushing this have any idea how rare that is? Most rape goes unreported, and then if it is reported it rarely manages to get to trial because our legal system is not fit for purpose for dealing with rape (and I will be the first to admit I do not know the solution to that problem).

I also think we should stop for a moment, and consider the woman who we should be concerned about in this, the one who was raped and most likely has had her life haunted and ruined by that. In comparison to that I honestly could not care about the welfare of a convicted rapist who wants to be allowed to immediately return to his super-privileged position as a representative of the community. I passionately believe in rehabilitation, but Ched Evans is firstly refusing to go along that route and secondly I think there is an important truth in what Charlie Webster has been saying this week. Footballer is not a normal job, it's a job of heightened responsibility in terms of you being a representative of that community and I get that it is a massive slap in the face to survivors of sexual violence who support Sheffield United to allow him to walk straight back into that role. Also think it is important to note that his punishment is not yet over; he's been let out early on parole.

Grey rape is a difficult thing to judge. There is a line of consent under the influence and judges have to decide exactly where it is and that is a terribly scary thought because I think there are very few of us that have not had a drunken hookup or two.

That said, Evans had mates film the incident and if he can remember and she can't I think most reasonable people would be able to make the right choice. I would not want him at my club.

Grey rape is a difficult thing to judge. There is a line of consent under the influence and judges have to decide exactly where it is and that is a terribly scary thought because I think there are very few of us that have not had a drunken hookup or two.

 

That said, Evans had mates film the incident and if he can remember and she can't I think most reasonable people would be able to make the right choice. I would not want him at my club.

Have to take issue with the use of 'grey rape' here. Rape is rape is rape. There is either consent from involved individuals or there isn't. Use of that phrase helps perpetuate the idea that there are some forms of rape that aren't really quite full rape; something I'm sure you weren't trying to do.

Have to take issue with the use of 'grey rape' here. Rape is rape is rape. There is either consent from involved individuals or there isn't. Use of that phrase helps perpetuate the idea that there are some forms of rape that aren't really quite full rape; something I'm sure you weren't trying to do.

Not at all, I was unaware of the stigma attached to the word, my apologies.

Interesting debate

Rape is rape in the eyes of the victim and that is what is important

but should there not be various classifications with appropriate sentencing

1. Violent rape by an umknown person in my mind is the worst kind. Look at the Angus Sinclair case. Thank goodness we have the double jeopardy laws up here,

( I wonder how his lawyer is feeling try to defend that murderous ****

2. the there is a the other end of the scale the drunken hook up issue , This is the grrey area. there have been a number of false claims in recent years

There is an inconsistentency in interpretation in the law

All I know is what is important to me is the victims who have been subjected to unwnanted forced , violent sexual rape.

I have been watching the Fall ,a great thriller series but one part of me says the BBC are wrong to broadcast as it it will encourage the likes of Sinclair. saville, wests etc to carry out replicated acts being portrayed

As for Evans. No he shouldnt be allowed a lucrative football career. I would still feel the same if he had showed some remorse

Have to take issue with the use of 'grey rape' here. Rape is rape is rape. There is either consent from involved individuals or there isn't. Use of that phrase helps perpetuate the idea that there are some forms of rape that aren't really quite full rape; something I'm sure you weren't trying to do.

So, you don't see any difference between a stranger raping an eight month pregnant woman at knifepoint and a 16 year old boy having consensual sex with his girlfriend the day before her 16th birthday?

So, you don't see any difference between a stranger raping an eight month pregnant woman at knifepoint and a 16 year old boy having consensual sex with his girlfriend the day before her 16th birthday?

One of which is clearly not rape.