trousers Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 If is the same website they also claim that she wasnt that drunk because she walked into the hotel ok. Not withstanding that there is plenty of CCTV footage showing she is clearly sh*tfaced. The court summary notes cover this too. The defence called an 'expert witness' (doesn't say who) who stated that she couldn't have been any more than 2.5 times over the drink drive limit at the time of the incident. The jury obviously decided to dismiss this 'expert' submission but it sounds like it isn't clear cut just how drunk she was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 You don't get memory loss from being 2.5 times the drink drive limit, she must've been considerably more sh*tfaced than that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 You don't get memory loss from being 2.5 times the drink drive limit, she must've been considerably more sh*tfaced than that Which is why the defence said her version of events didn't stack up. In other words, they accused her of lying about not remembering (again, its all in the court transcript notes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 Again, sober people. Yes quite. It is not as if they had all been out clubbing and getting wrecked togther. Evans and his buddy were both sober and knew exactly what was going on. Sadly for her instead of making sure she got home ok, his mate textd Evans saying Iv'e got a bird and took her back to the hotel room that Evans had booked for this very purpose. She was dragged there kicking and screaming but at the same time would a decent person have done what these two did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 He's been found guilty by a court of law, sure sometimes juries get it wrong but you can't just pick bits of evidence you read in the media and form any sort of conclusions. If it is overturned on appeal fair enough but until then we can assume he is guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 The court summary notes cover this too. The defence called an 'expert witness' (doesn't say who) who stated that she couldn't have been any more than 2.5 times over the drink drive limit at the time of the incident. The jury obviously decided to dismiss this 'expert' submission but it sounds like it isn't clear cut just how drunk she was. I've not seen the CCTV footage but apparently she was all over the place including squating down and having a wee in a shop doorway. She says she thinks her drink was spiked. Nothing showed up in the toxolgy report but apparently if she had been given something it could well have cleared her system by the time she was checked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 Which then returns to the arguement that if someone is that out of it how can they possibly be in the right state of mind to give consent. Sucking someone off might be a clue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 8 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 8 January, 2015 Yes quite. It is not as if they had all been out clubbing and getting wrecked togther. Evans and his buddy were both sober and knew exactly what was going on. Sadly for her instead of making sure she got home ok, his mate textd Evans saying Iv'e got a bird and took her back to the hotel room that Evans had booked for this very purpose. She was dragged there kicking and screaming but at the same time would a decent person have done what these two did? She was dragged kicking and screaming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ART Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 The trial revealed that the e missing handbag had been left in a Kebab takeaway before she even met McDonald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 She was dragged kicking and screaming? Clearly a typo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 She was dragged kicking and screaming? I think a typo - he meant she wasn't dragged kicking and screaming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 She was dragged kicking and screaming? No, she wasn't. The complete opposite. (Yes, I know your question was rhetorical). That's why McDonald was found not guilty - because the jury concluded that the actions of the woman (leading up to having sex in the hotel room) led McDonald to believe the liaison was consensual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 Aintforever He's been found guilty by a court of law, I know I am splitting hairs but it was the jury who found him guilty based on both the defence and prosecution submissions . It was the judge who passed sentence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 One for the Rod Liddle haters amongst us.... http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-liddle/9410182/the-utterly-ludicrous-and-petty-campaign-against-ched-evans/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 (edited) One for the Rod Liddle haters amongst us.... http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-liddle/9410182/the-utterly-ludicrous-and-petty-campaign-against-ched-evans/ What a monumental ****. Edited 9 January, 2015 by KelvinsRightGlove Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 One for the Rod Liddle haters amongst us.... http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-liddle/9410182/the-utterly-ludicrous-and-petty-campaign-against-ched-evans/ 500 words. Bosh. Will this do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 Appears Gordon Taylor has his heart set on dragging the PFA through the mud. http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/pfa-chief-gordon-taylor-under-4944907 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 Appears Gordon Taylor has his heart set on dragging the PFA through the mud. http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/pfa-chief-gordon-taylor-under-4944907 He clearly wasn't comparing ched Evans to the Hillsborough families in the way that that article implies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 He clearly wasn't comparing ched Evans to the Hillsborough families in the way that that article implies. The phrase "in the same breath" springs to mind. Mentioning that in the same interview is dropping an astonishing bol lock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 He clearly wasn't comparing ched Evans to the Hillsborough families in the way that that article implies. Hypo - it's just been on the BBC 10 O'Clock News, and frankly there is no other way to interpret what he said. What a di ck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 Hypo - it's just been on the BBC 10 O'Clock News, and frankly there is no other way to interpret what he said. What a di ck. OK well I haven't heard the interview, I only read the transcript so I'll take your word for it. Pretty idiotic thing to say then if that's the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 Bloody stupid thing to say if that's what he has said . I haven't listened to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwsaint Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 Just seen Gordon Taylor on the news comparing the Ched Evans case to Hillsborough. He will regret these comments. Expect a backlash against him in the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 Just seen Gordon Taylor on the news comparing the Ched Evans case to Hillsborough. He will regret these comments. Expect a backlash against him in the media. He also seemed to effectively be predicting the outcome of the appeal and has seemingly decided that Evans was wrongly convicted... very, very dangerous ground IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 He also seemed to effectively be predicting the outcome of the appeal and has seemingly decided that Evans was wrongly convicted... very, very dangerous ground IMO. Yeah, to be honest that is worse than the Hillsborough comments for me. Obviously (apparently I need to spell everything out explicitly lest some bizarre claim be thrown at me) the Hillsborough comments are ridiculously ill-judged and insensitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 She was dragged kicking and screaming? My bad, typo. Should have been wasnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 Sucking someone off might be a clue I thought it as the other way around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 8 January, 2015 Share Posted 8 January, 2015 Just seen Gordon Taylor on the news comparing the Ched Evans case to Hillsborough. He will regret these comments. Expect a backlash against him in the media. Taylor seems to spend most of his time defending the indefensible. Ok, he is a union rep, but perhaps if he had trod a harder line from his early days the footballers of today wouldn't think that they are something special and in some cases, above the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 I thought it as the other way around? Thought, thought he'd sh!t himself and when he looked he had. You need to read the court transcripts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 On the subject of threats, is there a petition that needs signing to have Jason Puncheon removed as a professional footballer? He did, after all, make drunken death threats to a group of people : http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/crystal-palace-winger-jason-puncheon-4934627 Are drunken death threats a better or worse crime than drunk driving? Should he be hounded out of his job or lauded as a hero and role model? The lines are blurred, so feel free to clarify.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sloppy-giuseppe Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Really good post. I thoroughly agree with you. O f course he should be allowed to earn a living, otherwise he will just become yet more of a burden on the state, in addition to his prison upkeep, which we have being paying for, incidentally ! But not in a high profile, 'role-model' type of job that a Professional Football League Player enjoys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 On the subject of threats, is there a petition that needs signing to have Jason Puncheon removed as a professional footballer? He did, after all, make drunken death threats to a group of people : http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/crystal-palace-winger-jason-puncheon-4934627 Are drunken death threats a better or worse crime than drunk driving? Should he be hounded out of his job or lauded as a hero and role model? The lines are blurred, so feel free to clarify.... You could ask the victims of Luke McCormack. I'm sure they'll thoroughly enjoy your exploration of this obviously vague grey area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucks Saint Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Really good post. I thoroughly agree with you. O f course he should be allowed to earn a living, otherwise he will just become yet more of a burden on the state, in addition to his prison upkeep, which we have being paying for, incidentally ! But not in a high profile, 'role-model' type of job that a Professional Football League Player enjoys. So what role are you saying he should be allowed to do then? And just him, or anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 (edited) I think other people have addressed this anyway. Rape (and serious sexual assault) is a clear one for me, and if the authorities find a way of enshrining that thinking into guidelines all clubs in the two leagues sign up to, then great. You can blather on about speeding tickets if you want, but I am quite happy to deal specifically with sexual violence as I have said numerous times on the thread. Duplicate Edited 9 January, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 I think other people have addressed this anyway. Rape (and serious sexual assault) is a clear one for me, and if the authorities find a way of enshrining that thinking into guidelines all clubs in the two leagues sign up to, then great. You can blather on about speeding tickets if you want, but I am quite happy to deal specifically with sexual violence as I have said numerous times on the thread. So normal sexual assault is alright then? Good to know. So how would you quantify it. If he rapes her, no, if he just touches her fanny, then that's fine? I am very interested as to how you're going to make this work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 So normal sexual assault is alright then? Good to know. So how would you quantify it. If he rapes her, no, if he just touches her fanny, then that's fine? I am very interested as to how you're going to make this work. Let's stop shall we, whatever I say you'll pick holes in it, make out its some huge grey area so let's not bother at all and fingers crossed let's have Saints squad jam packed with rapists. If I'd have said "all sexual assault" you'd have just come out with a "what if" from the extreme end of that scale. There would be a line that can be drawn. life is full of ambiguity. Sorry about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Let's stop shall we, whatever I say you'll pick holes in it, make out its some huge grey area so let's not bother at all and fingers crossed let's have Saints squad jam packed with rapists. If I'd have said "all sexual assault" you'd have just come out with a "what if" from the extreme end of that scale. There would be a line that can be drawn. life is full of ambiguity. Sorry about that. And that's the whole point, either it's all or nothing as there is too much ambiguity. Glad you've finally got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 And that's the whole point, either it's all or nothing as there is too much ambiguity. Glad you've finally got it. There is no area of law or human activity that is free from ambiguity. None. Yet judges and lawmakers have done a pretty good job of resisting dimwitted, slippery slope arguments. Of course, law changes; new exceptions are made as unforeseen circumstances test the old boundaries. It's invariably messy but it's never all or nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 (edited) There is no area of law or human activity that is free from ambiguity. None. Yet judges and lawmakers have done a pretty good job of resisting dimwitted, slippery slope arguments. Of course, law changes; new exceptions are made as unforeseen circumstances test the old boundaries. It's invariably messy but it's never all or nothing. At the moment it's nothing? If you want the FA to administer and judge who can and cannot play then you need to draw that line otherwise there would be too much ambiguity and it would be too difficult. You would do it based on length of incarceration or (if over 2 years at her majesty's), or guilty of any criminal offence. Football clubs should take on the responsibility of this, like normal businesses do. Edited 9 January, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 At the moment it's nothing? You know exactly what I mean - the suggestion that the only alternative to doing nothing is blanket criminalisation and overreach. Hence all or nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 You know exactly what I mean - the suggestion that the only alternative to doing nothing is blanket criminalisation and overreach. Hence all or nothing. But my point is the ambiguity means this is something the FA should push onto the clubs - it's not feasible and every single case will be very difficult to judge. Is someone who drink drove and injured someone more worthy of playing football than one who groped a girl in a bar, or one that sold drugs, or one that downloaded child porn, and so on and so forth. It will become far too messy for a governing body to intervene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 (edited) But my point is the ambiguity means this is something the FA should push onto the clubs - it's not feasible and every single case will be very difficult to judge. Is someone who drink drove and injured someone more worthy of playing football than one who groped a girl in a bar, or one that sold drugs, or one that downloaded child porn, and so on and so forth. It will become far too messy for a governing body to intervene. In most other walks of life, organisations are able to navigate such ambiguity -firing an employee for poor performance, for instance, raises exactly the same, thorny questions around definition and degree; yet it happens everyday without people batting an eye. Rather the assumption is that due process has been respected and all relevant considerations have been taken into account. And it largely works. Of course, it's worth considering the consequences of doing nothing which are not trivial. Often when the law or any other rule is seen as grossly deficient, mob justice steps in to compensate. Ideally these matters would be settled in a rational, orderly way -hence the need for rules- rather than be left to the whims of the Twittersphere and hectoring journos. For what it's worth, the issue should have never got to this stage -and if people feel strongly about this issue, then the proper target for reform should be rape sentencing, not the HR decisions of a third division club or the FA's code of conduct. See Marina Hyde's article http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/jan/06/ched-evans-law-marina-hyde. But to the extent that the big decisions are bottled, the dirty work will continue to be outsourced and delegated -first to the likes of the FA and individual football clubs and ultimately to the mob. Edited 9 January, 2015 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 In most other walks of life, organisations are able to navigate such ambiguity -firing an employee for poor performance, for instance, raises exactly the same, thorny questions around definition and degree; yet it happens everyday without people batting an eye. Rather the assumption is that due process has been respected and all relevant considerations have been taken into account. And it largely works. Of course, it's worth considering the consequences of doing nothing which are not trivial. Often when the law or any other rule is seen as grossly deficient, mob justice steps in to compensate. Ideally these matters would be settled in a rational, orderly way -hence the need for rules- rather than be left to the whims of the Twittersphere and hectoring journos. For what it's worth, the issue should have never got to this stage -and if people feel strongly about this issue, then the proper target for reform should be rape sentencing, not the HR decisions of a third division club or the FA's code of conduct. See Marina Hyde's article http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/jan/06/ched-evans-law-marina-hyde. But to the extent that the big decisions are bottled, the dirty work will continue to be outsourced and delegated -first to the likes of the FA and individual football clubs and ultimately to the mob. Good post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 If is the same website they also claim that she wasnt that drunk because she walked into the hotel ok. Not withstanding that there is plenty of CCTV footage showing she is clearly sh*tfaced. No trolls question, at what point of being drunk do you lose responsibility for your actions? The girl was obviously drunk, not paralytic being carried like a rag doll but drunk. If on the same night, the same girl would have kicked or punched a police officer, would she not be culpable for her actions? Could she use the same argument that she was too drunk to know what she was doing? Not defending Evans here, just genuinely interested about how responsible for your actions you are when drunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 (edited) No trolls question, at what point of being drunk do you lose responsibility for your actions? The girl was obviously drunk, not paralytic being carried like a rag doll but drunk. If on the same night, the same girl would have kicked or punched a police officer, would she not be culpable for her actions? Could she use the same argument that she was too drunk to know what she was doing? Not defending Evans here, just genuinely interested about how responsible for your actions you are when drunk. This is one of the (many) reasons that rape convictions are so low, as it is difficult to judge as every case is different. The culpability is usually pushed onto the other party, and whether a reasonable man would have said she was in a state to consent. I suppose to a degree it shows intention. Edited 9 January, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 No trolls question, at what point of being drunk do you lose responsibility for your actions? The girl was obviously drunk, not paralytic being carried like a rag doll but drunk. If on the same night, the same girl would have kicked or punched a police officer, would she not be culpable for her actions? Could she use the same argument that she was too drunk to know what she was doing? Not defending Evans here, just genuinely interested about how responsible for your actions you are when drunk. Good point. If she had assaulted a police officer she could have been done for being drunk and disorderly so that she woud be held responsible. Same as if you rape somewhen when drunk, that is no defence. I guess it is about the exent to which you impose your will/actions on someone else and to what extent you take advantage of someone who is not in control or able to make reasoned decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 This is one of the (many) reasons that rape convictions are so low, as it is difficult to judge as every case is different. The culpability is usually pushed onto the other party, and whether a reasonable man would have said she was in a state to consent. I suppose to a degree it shows intention. Once upon a time an alleged rapist would say it wasnt him. With DNA they cant do that so easily so the arguement usually comes down to consent which as UJ says is difficult to prove or disprove. The law needs to protect people from the affects of booze and drugs (the fact that one drug is called a date rape drug says it all) but proving intent/none consent comes down to how successfully the case is put and what the jury thinks. It is a huge step forward that police are putting more of these cases forward but the CPS still have a difficult job in deciding what to charge as the case neds to have a reasonable chance of sucess in court. Cases are still being dropped although the CPS believe the victim on the basis that there is no reasonable chance of conviction. The good thing about the high profile Evans case is that, hopefully, it will make people think twice about what they do with someone who is not in control of themselves. Not only do the CPS use specialist teams for rape cases, but they also use specialist counsel to prosecute them. Murder cases don't even get that level of specialist prosecution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 And that's the whole point, either it's all or nothing as there is too much ambiguity. Glad you've finally got it. Rape and "touching her fanny" is the same is it? Funny, thought there were laws that defined things. Lines can be, and are, drawn. All the time, on everything. Sad you can't get that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Good point. If she had assaulted a police officer she could have been done for being drunk and disorderly so that she woud be held responsible. Same as if you rape somewhen when drunk, that is no defence. I guess it is about the exent to which you impose your will/actions on someone else and to what extent you take advantage of someone who is not in control or able to make reasoned decisions. Not related to the Ched Evans case but what happens when two very drunk people have sex? Is the guy guilty of rape or she guilty of indecent assault? What happens if they both stagger off afterwards and get picked up by sober people who have sex with them. Who is guilty then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Rape and "touching her fanny" is the same is it? Funny, thought there were laws that defined things. Lines can be, and are, drawn. All the time, on everything. Sad you can't get that. Funny, I was sure you said we should stop this conversation? Of course it's not the same. What I would like to know is where does sexual assault become serious sexual assault? And I assume that if a footballer 'does' a normal sexual assault, that's ok, judging by what's above? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts