trousers Posted 5 January, 2015 Share Posted 5 January, 2015 (edited) I think a video was made of it. In response to SOG, she says she can't remember anything from the night, including giving oral and having sex with the first bloke I believe. That's where the inconsistency is. This "inconsistency" is explained here: https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans The jury was directed as follows: "When you come back .... you will be asked to return separate verdicts in respect of each of the two defendants. Accordingly, when you retire you must consider the case, that is to say the evidence for and against each of the two defendants separately. Whilst there is a considerable overlap in that evidence, the evidence is not identical, and whilst your verdicts may very well be the same in the case, they might be different. The important thing for you to remember is your approach to the case for and against the defendants must be considered separately." Given that direction, it was open to the jury to convict both defendants, to acquit both defendants, or to convict one and not the other defendant. That was the point of a joint trial in which separate verdicts were to be returned. It was open to the jury to consider that even if the complainant did not, in fact, consent to sexual intercourse with either of the two men, that in the light of his part in what happened -- the meeting in the street and so on -- McDonald may reasonably have believed that the complainant had consented to sexual activity with him, and at the same time concluded that the applicant [Evans] knew perfectly well that she had not consented to sexual activity with him (the applicant). The circumstances in which each of the two men came to be involved in the sexual activity was quite different; so indeed were the circumstances in which they left her. Those were matters entirely open to the jury; there was no inconsistency. The appeal judge is basically saying that the first bloke *could* have been led to believe that it was consensual because of the events leading up to the 'act' (i.e. they met at a takeaway, got in a taxi, went to a hotel, etc) whereas Evans just pitched up at the hotel and could have been under no illusions that the woman was too drunk to consent. I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with the conclusions of the jury and the judge(s) but that's the distinction that led to the first guy being found not guilty and Evans guilty of the "same" offence. It's all about their own perception of the incident not whether the woman gave her consent, per se. Edited 5 January, 2015 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 5 January, 2015 Share Posted 5 January, 2015 This "inconsistency" is explained here: https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans The appeal judge is basically saying that the first bloke *could* have been led to believe that it was consensual because of the events leading up to the 'act' (i.e. they met at a takeaway, got in a taxi, went to a hotel, etc) whereas Evans just pitched up at the hotel and could have been under no illusions that the woman was too drunk to consent. I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with the conclusions of the jury and the judge(s) but that's the distinction that led to the first guy being found not guilty and Evans guilty of the same offence. It's all about their own perception of the incident not whether the woman gave her consent, per se. Cool, fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 5 January, 2015 Share Posted 5 January, 2015 I think a video was made of it. In response to SOG, she says she can't remember anything from the night, including giving oral and having sex with the first bloke I believe. That's where the inconsistency is. Additionally, I'm told by girls they can usually 'tell' when they have had sex the next day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 5 January, 2015 Share Posted 5 January, 2015 BBC saying Oldham now getting cold feet.. Too late now, Evans is going to force it through. Edit: Is it ok to say that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 5 January, 2015 Share Posted 5 January, 2015 Too late now, Evans is going to force it through. Edit: Is it ok to say that? I'm sorry but I couldn't help but laugh at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 5 January, 2015 Share Posted 5 January, 2015 LOL, they have already given consent haven't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 5 January, 2015 Share Posted 5 January, 2015 Additionally, I'm told by girls they can usually 'tell' when they have had sex the next day. Not the ones I know :cry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 5 January, 2015 Share Posted 5 January, 2015 I'm sorry but I couldn't help but laugh at that. Except it isn't funny at all - this whole event is not funny. We should not laugh at the fact that Ched Evans has ruined a person's life by raping them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warsash saint Posted 5 January, 2015 Share Posted 5 January, 2015 Why no media uproar after Luke McComick walked back into a job after robbing a family of its 2 young boys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 5 January, 2015 Share Posted 5 January, 2015 I've not been following this closely but... If she had no recollection how does she know what happened? The police made some enquiries and found who she had been with. When interviewed they both said that they had had sex with her and that it had been consensual. The guys trying to film the action through the window did not succeed apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 5 January, 2015 Share Posted 5 January, 2015 Why no media uproar after Luke McComick walked back into a job after robbing a family of its 2 young boys? That doesn't really have much to do with this case, does it? Wrong decisions in the past, should have no bearing on making the right decisions now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 5 January, 2015 Share Posted 5 January, 2015 Except it isn't funny at all - this whole event is not funny. We should not laugh at the fact that Ched Evans has ruined a person's life by raping them. Except that isn't what I was laughing at clearly. Rape isn't funny but the play on words was amusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackanorySFC Posted 5 January, 2015 Share Posted 5 January, 2015 Why no media uproar after Luke McComick walked back into a job after robbing a family of its 2 young boys? He expressed remorse for what he did with a letter to his victims family. If he had shown the same contempt for his victims and their family as Evans has his he would have had the same treatment IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 5 January, 2015 Share Posted 5 January, 2015 He expressed remorse for what he did with a letter to his victims family. If he had shown the same contempt for his victims and their family as Evans has his he would have had the same treatment IMO. He also pleaded guilty. He was clearly out of order drink driving but also clearly did not set out to purposely kill anyone. Tragic case but very different circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 5 January, 2015 Share Posted 5 January, 2015 (edited) Oldham have just put out a statement saying they are not making any official announcement yet. Seems slightly odd. Edited 5 January, 2015 by KelvinsRightGlove Wrote Grimsby, clearly confused by the Grimsby thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simo Posted 5 January, 2015 Share Posted 5 January, 2015 So , just out of interest what if he is successful on appeal and gets the conviction overturned will everyone say sorry and will he be given the money he is losing in wages? A part of me thinks everyone deserves a second chance , but not rape I wouldn't work with a rapist or have any of my family working with one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simo Posted 5 January, 2015 Share Posted 5 January, 2015 Oldham have just put out a statement saying they are not making any official announcement yet. Seems slightly odd. Continuing due diligence apparently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 5 January, 2015 Share Posted 5 January, 2015 Except it isn't funny at all - this whole event is not funny. We should not laugh at the fact that Ched Evans has ruined a person's life by raping them. Dear me. I've done plenty of Evans outrage but behave yourself. Too late now, Evans is going to force it through. Edit: Is it ok to say that? I love you Bearsy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 5 January, 2015 Share Posted 5 January, 2015 This "inconsistency" is explained here: https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans The appeal judge is basically saying that the first bloke *could* have been led to believe that it was consensual because of the events leading up to the 'act' (i.e. they met at a takeaway, got in a taxi, went to a hotel, etc) whereas Evans just pitched up at the hotel and could have been under no illusions that the woman was too drunk to consent. I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with the conclusions of the jury and the judge(s) but that's the distinction that led to the first guy being found not guilty and Evans guilty of the "same" offence. It's all about their own perception of the incident not whether the woman gave her consent, per se. Ah. Thanks for the clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 5 January, 2015 Share Posted 5 January, 2015 Oldham have just put out a statement saying they are not making any official announcement yet. Seems slightly odd. I reckon they have already signed him, now are desperately searching for a get out clause, without having to stump up a lump of cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 5 January, 2015 Share Posted 5 January, 2015 I reckon they have already signed him, now are desperately searching for a get out clause, without having to stump up a lump of cash. Sounds plausible. Saw the Oldham Chairman said earlier that he was surprised by the reaction. How on earth could you be surprised by this? Surely, it was effing obvious that people would be unhappy about this. It's not as if sh!t hasn't been following him around already. Surely you wouldn't touch the bloke with a barge pole, right now the bloke is toxic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 5 January, 2015 Share Posted 5 January, 2015 i think it's moneyball, you can find some real bargains on the sex offenders register Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lets B Avenue Posted 5 January, 2015 Share Posted 5 January, 2015 i think it's moneyball, you can find some real bargains on the sex offenders register Max Clifford to The Skates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 5 January, 2015 Share Posted 5 January, 2015 Sounds plausible. Saw the Oldham Chairman said earlier that he was surprised by the reaction. How on earth could you be surprised by this? Surely, it was effing obvious that people would be unhappy about this. It's not as if sh!t hasn't been following him around already. Surely you wouldn't touch the bloke with a barge pole, right now the bloke is toxic. Indeed. The amount of grief generated when Sheffield United allowed him to train should have told Oldham all they need to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 5 January, 2015 Share Posted 5 January, 2015 Just on news. Oldham say they are in a "difficlut situation." Unless they have offered him a contract already and are now having second thoughts what is difficult about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 6 January, 2015 Share Posted 6 January, 2015 IMO it's fairly straightforward. * He was found guilty. * He has served only half his sentence so others cannot claim "he has done his time" etc. He remains on recall. * If he continues to claim innocence, then his appeal will address that claim suitably in time. * The MOJ have already stated they are fast tracking his appeal, so he has already gained something most others convicted of a crime don't get. * Until the appeal hearing is heard, he remains a convicted criminal serving a current sentence. Not much more to add. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 6 January, 2015 Share Posted 6 January, 2015 IMO it's fairly straightforward. * He was found guilty. * He has served only half his sentence so others cannot claim "he has done his time" etc. He remains on recall. * If he continues to claim innocence, then his appeal will address that claim suitably in time. * The MOJ have already stated they are fast tracking his appeal, so he has already gained something most others convicted of a crime don't get. * Until the appeal hearing is heard, he remains a convicted criminal serving a current sentence. Not much more to add. Has he appealed before and they have been turned down. The case has gone to the review board which isn't the same as an appeal. The problem is clearly that he is now available to work again and there is nothing legally stopping him being a professional footballer once more. The issues now are moral ones about whether he should be allowed to be a "role model" once more. If he were a doctor or teacher he wouldn't be able to resume his career. If he was a plumber or insurance salesman no one would bat an eyelid. The are no rules as such in these circumstances which is why the debate rattles on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 6 January, 2015 Share Posted 6 January, 2015 Is it technically legal for potential employers to discriminate against criminals? Srs question no trolls pls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 6 January, 2015 Share Posted 6 January, 2015 If he was a plumber or insurance salesman no one would bat an eyelid. Which is interesting really. Would you rather a convicted rapist was employed in a role where he was surrounded by men, and the main part of his work was in clear view of thousands of people. Or a plumber, who is in your house alone with your wife? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 6 January, 2015 Share Posted 6 January, 2015 (edited) Is it technically legal for potential employers to discriminate against criminals? Srs question no trolls pls. This is all down to when the conviction is 'spent' - any custodial sentence less than 4 years becomes spent after a period of time and if a conviction is spent then it is illegal to not employ someone because of the previous conviction. Evans was sentenced to 5 years I believe and therefore his conviction will never be spent, so any employer CAN refuse to employ him on this basis alone. Edit: a bit more info: https://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/personal/rehabilitation-of-offenders-act Edit 2: Worth noting that this is based purely on the length of sentence and NOT the offence itself. Edited 6 January, 2015 by Minty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 6 January, 2015 Share Posted 6 January, 2015 Which is interesting really. Would you rather a convicted rapist was employed in a role where he was surrounded by men, and the main part of his work was in clear view of thousands of people. Or a plumber, who is in your house alone with your wife? In my house he is more likely to be alone with me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 6 January, 2015 Share Posted 6 January, 2015 Which is interesting really. Would you rather a convicted rapist was employed in a role where he was surrounded by men, and the main part of his work was in clear view of thousands of people. Or a plumber, who is in your house alone with your wife? In my house he is more likely to be alone with me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 6 January, 2015 Share Posted 6 January, 2015 In my house he is more likely to be alone with me! Make sure you look before you sit down... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 6 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2015 it is a shame such outrage with not displayed towards marlon king, lee hughes and luke mccormick better late than never Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 6 January, 2015 Share Posted 6 January, 2015 it is a shame such outrage with not displayed towards marlon king, lee hughes and luke mccormick better late than never pre-twitter. or at least before it was massive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 6 January, 2015 Share Posted 6 January, 2015 it is a shame such outrage with not displayed towards marlon king, lee hughes and luke mccormick better late than never I think there were things said at the time but death by dangerous driving, as awful as these cases are, are different to rape. McCormick was certainly repentatant - not sure about the responses of the other two but Evans has not helped himself since his release regarding his attitude towards his conviction and the victim. The victim is still being victimised and has had to move 5 times since the offence took place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 6 January, 2015 Share Posted 6 January, 2015 it is a shame such outrage with not displayed towards marlon king, lee hughes and luke mccormick better late than never A) There was B) Again, wrong actions in one case does not mean seeking the right actions in another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 6 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2015 A) There was B) Again, wrong actions in one case does not mean seeking the right actions in another. there was no where near the outrage with the others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 6 January, 2015 Share Posted 6 January, 2015 there was no where near the outrage with the others So therefore no-one can be angry about this then? Because in the past, people wern't as angry about a different person, in different circumstances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 6 January, 2015 Share Posted 6 January, 2015 Different circumstances. I am sure none of three death by dangerous set out to deliberately kill anyone and could have ended up dead themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 6 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2015 Different circumstances. I am sure none of three death by dangerous set out to deliberately kill anyone and could have ended up dead themselves. ah, that is OK then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 6 January, 2015 Share Posted 6 January, 2015 Don't be silly, of course it isn't okay. But they are different circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 6 January, 2015 Share Posted 6 January, 2015 ah, that is OK then Not like you to take the "everyone's a hypocrite" angle on an issue. Oh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 6 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2015 Not like you to take the "everyone's a hypocrite" angle on an issue. Oh. not like you to mention it oh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 6 January, 2015 Share Posted 6 January, 2015 IMO it's fairly straightforward. * He was found guilty. * He has served only half his sentence so others cannot claim "he has done his time" etc. He remains on recall. * If he continues to claim innocence, then his appeal will address that claim suitably in time. * The MOJ have already stated they are fast tracking his appeal, so he has already gained something most others convicted of a crime don't get. * Until the appeal hearing is heard, he remains a convicted criminal serving a current sentence. Not much more to add. I haven't read this entire thread, so forgive me if this has already been covered, but what exactly is so different about Ched - you seem to be highlighting his 'criminality' as opposed to the moral issues relating to his crime.... Take, for example, Luke McCormick : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_McCormick Got drunk, got behind the wheel of his car, crashed the car killing two children in the process, went to prison. Sentenced to 7 years and four months in October 2008 and was released in June 2012. He technically still has another thirteen months to serve on his sentence, yet he has been playing football and been paid for it, since he left prison! Not only that, he is Club Captain! How is it possible that one footballer is hounded out of his job, whilst another one is not only accepted back into the footballing world but is heralded as a 'figurehead'?? I appreciate that their are degrees of 'criminality' but in one case only one life was affected by the rape, whilst in the other case, two young lives were taken away which presumably also affected the lives of the rest of the family.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 6 January, 2015 Share Posted 6 January, 2015 I am not going to minimise the loss of life here but many people on this list have driven a car drunk and have been lucky to get home without killing themselves or anyone else. I doubt if there are many here who have raped anyone. Causing death by dangerous driving is a very serious offence but it is not murder. If we were talking about three footballers who had committed murder I am sure the outcry would be similar to that of Evans. I agree that the degrees of separation are not huge, but I think they are significant. It is a tough call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 6 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2015 I am not going to minimise the loss of life here but many people on this list have driven a car drunk and have been lucky to get home without killing themselves or anyone else. I doubt if there are many here who have raped anyone. Causing death by dangerous driving is a very serious offence but it is not murder. If we were talking about three footballers who had committed murder I am sure the outcry would be similar to that of Evans. I agree that the degrees of separation are not huge, but I think they are significant. It is a tough call. but then you go on to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 6 January, 2015 Share Posted 6 January, 2015 By pointing out the obvious fact that these people have not murdered anyone (it is called causing death by dangerous driving and not murder for a reason) I have tried to demonstrate that there is a difference. If you feel that is minimising the loss of life that is down to you. Would you agree that there is a difference between the 2 offences? Perhaps I should put it another way - why do you think more people are outraged about Evans than they are about these three other footballers??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 6 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2015 By pointing out the obvious fact that these people have not murdered anyone (it is called causing death by dangerous driving and not murder for a reason) I have tried to demonstrate that there is a difference. If you feel that is minimising the loss of life that is down to you. Would you agree that there is a difference between the 2 offences? Perhaps I should put it another way - why do you think more people are outraged about Evans than they are about these three other footballers??? he killed people by making a choice to do something very illegal. yet he is skipper of his club in england. what WSS was asking, where is the outrage for him. why are we not demanding plymouth strip him of his captaincy at least his crime was seen as more severe in the eyes of the our justice system, given the sentences dished out I think people are more outraged at even MORE than they were at the others as that is the society we live in. Getting offended/outraged...more so on social media, is the done thing I think it i a tough choice for people with evens. On one hand, he should be allowed a 2nd chance, we live in a liberal, fair and forgiving society and the other hand, he should rot in hell but isnt that the same as the skipper of Plymouth Argyle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 6 January, 2015 Share Posted 6 January, 2015 I would be happy to see Luke McCormick frozen out of football as well but I can see the difference between the two in the intent. McCormick didn't mean to kill anyone (and I think he has shown remorse) whereas a rapist purposely ruins the life of the girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts