Ched Evans

[Sour Mash]

And if they rape people they should expect to end up in court.

WHich no-one is disputing, so I'm not sure what your point is.

[Halo Stickman]

I work for the CPS.

 

Out of interest, SOG, are you able or happy to tell us what role you perform at the CPS?

[Sour Mash]

The law. It says quite clearly under the circumstances in which it is deemed people cannot rationally consent to sex. Are you saying it is all right to sh*g someone who is completely out of it?

Where have I said I'm suggesting that. Try to have a rational discussion, or don't bother. As you're the expert on the law, what is the definition?

[sadoldgit]

Out of interest, SOG, are you able or happy to tell us what role you perform at the CPS?

 

I managed the caseworkers who work on Crown Court cases. Up until recently that included caseworkers who dealt with Rape and Serious Sexual Offences (RASSO). I have had nothing to do with the case I should add.

 

What I can tell you is the complainant first had to convince the police that she had been raped. The Reviewing Lawyer at the CPS would need to read the case and agree. And then the jury has to be convinced. It is no easy matter and for this rape case to have been successful a lot of people have had to agree that rape took place.

 

Ched Evans is a convicted rapist.

[Professor]

how can he show remorse for something he is adamant he did not do, and even more to the point he is appealing against. If he were to show remorse that just means his appeal collapses. This whole thing about remorse is so misunderstood by so many people who do not understand how the legal system works.

Its not entirely unusual for some criminals to think they are innocent but Evans needs to accept that the Jury did not agree with him and neither did the Court of Criminal Appeal when it rejected his appeal in 2012. That's why he's been in prison for the past 2 and a half years. But there is a system, so what he should have done, is stay away from football while the Criminal Cases Review Commission deals with his request for them to look at his case. In the meantime there are other jobs he could do to earn a living like any other released prisoner. He is a convicted rapist who has only served half of his sentence and instead of keeping his head down by training in private, he has dragged the name of Sheffield United through the mire.

[sadoldgit]

Where have I said I'm suggesting that. Try to have a rational discussion, or don't bother. As you're the expert on the law, what is the definition?

 

If you read further back it is there. I was having a rational discussion. You didn't answer my question.

[sadoldgit]

The Sexual Offences Act 1956 contains no statutory definition of 'consent'. Juries must be told that the word should be given its ordinary meaning, and that there is a difference between 'consent' and 'submission'.

 

Lack of consent may be demonstrated by:

 

Evidence that by reason of drink, drugs, sleep, age or mental disability the complainant was unaware of what was occurring and/ or incapable of giving valid consent.

[Halo Stickman]

I managed the caseworkers who work on Crown Court cases. Up until recently that included caseworkers who dealt with Rape and Serious Sexual Offences (RASSO). I have had nothing to do with the case I should add.

 

What I can tell you is the complainant first had to convince the police that she had been raped. The Reviewing Lawyer at the CPS would need to read the case and agree. And then the jury has to be convinced. It is no easy matter and for this rape case to have been successful a lot of people have had to agree that rape took place.

 

Ched Evans is a convicted rapist.

 

Ok, thanks for that SOG.

[Batman]

Its not entirely unusual for some criminals to think they are innocent but Evans needs to accept that the Jury did not agree with him and neither did the Court of Criminal Appeal when it rejected his appeal in 2012. That's why he's been in prison for the past 2 and a half years. But there is a system, so what he should have done, is stay away from football while the Criminal Cases Review Commission deals with his request for them to look at his case. In the meantime there are other jobs he could do to earn a living like any other released prisoner. He is a convicted rapist who has only served half of his sentence and instead of keeping his head down by training in private, he has dragged the name of Sheffield United through the mire.

not when he has the right to appeal

[sadoldgit]

WHich no-one is disputing, so I'm not sure what your point is.

 

My point was it might go with sailors, freshers etc on but there is a difference between consensual sex and rape and we are talking about rape.

[sadoldgit]

not when he has the right to appeal

 

If the Court of Appeal have rejected it there must be very strong grounds to uphold the conviction.

[Batman]

If the Court of Appeal have rejected it there must be very strong grounds to uphold the conviction.

 

they might be wrong?

[CB Fry]

they might be wrong?

Let's call him sports personality of the year and be done with it.

 

Maybe, just maybe, they're not wrong.

[Sour Mash]

The Sexual Offences Act 1956 contains no statutory definition of 'consent'. Juries must be told that the word should be given its ordinary meaning, and that there is a difference between 'consent' and 'submission'.

 

Lack of consent may be demonstrated by:

 

Evidence that by reason of drink, drugs, sleep, age or mental disability the complainant was unaware of what was occurring and/ or incapable of giving valid consent.

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?

[Bucks Saint]

If the Court of Appeal have rejected it there must be very strong grounds to uphold the conviction.

 

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

[hypochondriac]

Must be difficult to ascertain when the level of consent stops since surely it is different for each individual and each circumstance?

[KingdomCome]

The law. It says quite clearly under the circumstances in which it is deemed people cannot rationally consent to sex. Are you saying it is all right to sh*g someone who is completely out of it?

 

Like McDonald did you mean?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

How depressingly predictable:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-30057936

[buctootim]

How depressingly predictable:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-30057936

 

Did Ched Evans send it?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Did Ched Evans send it?

 

No idea. I've not tried to suggest he had anything to do with it.

 

It's more just the general pattern. Woman speaks up about an issue involving women and or rape, woman receives death rape threats.

[Sour Mash]

No idea. I've not tried to suggest he had anything to do with it.

 

It's more just the general pattern. Woman speaks up about an issue involving women and or rape, woman receives death rape threats.

one tweet from a random weirdo isn't it?

[TheCholulaKid]

No idea. I've not tried to suggest he had anything to do with it.

 

It's more just the general pattern. Woman speaks up about an issue involving women and or rape, woman receives death rape threats.

 

Rape threat was sent by twitter user @RickieLambert07 apparently. Tweet and account was then deleted.

Seeing as Lambert's squad number is 9 at Liverpool presumably it was a Saints fan that sent it.

 

Any of Evans' defenders on here perchance?

[Wade Garrett]

He was found guilty by a jury and has been refused an appeal. That just about says it for me.

 

No nonces in football.

[Pastor Patrón]

Has anyone even seen what the girl in question looks like before judging him too harshly?

[cellone]

Why is this on our main board?

[cellone]

Has anyone even seen what the girl in question looks like before judging him too harshly?

 

C UN ttttttttt

[aintforever]

I hate all this outrage over tweets bullsh!t. When I was a kid my mum always said "sticks and stones may break your bones but names will never harm you".

 

Now someone tweets something that's not nice and people go to the police. Pathetic. If you don't like what someone says just ignore it.

[L_O_Z]

The girl went back to the hotel hand in hand with McDonald. Evans invited himself to the hotel, and seemingly to her.

 

But she says she doesn't remember anything after she left the club.* She says she could not consent to going back to a hotel with McDonald because she was too drunk.* Her legal team said McDonald saw she was off her face and led her away.* He took advantage of a vulnerable young woman (vulnerable because she had alcohol and drugs in her system) and then phoned his mate to join in.* Surely they both raped her?

 

McDonald admitted inviting Evans to join in (allegedly with her consent) so doesn't that make McDonald a rapist?* If the jury don't think McDonald raped her for some reason, surely at the very least McDonald is an accessory to rape?

 

If you believe she could consent to McDonald and not Evans then that opens a whole can of worms:

 

1. Is she then lying that McDonald raped her?

2. Is McDonald an accessory to rape for finding a heavily drunk girl and inviting his mate to have sex with her in his presence?

3.*At what point is she not able to consent?* Before she met McDonald she drank two large glasses of wine, four double vodkas, sambuca and she had cocaine and cannabis in her system. She was seen on the floor in a takeaway. An hour later she was having sex with two men. One's a rapist the other is an everyday citizen. How do they justify letting one off and convicting the other.

 

I'm not saying he is innocent, just something doesn't fit. They are both arseholes anyway, but so are 100,000 other young guys and girls who sh*g strangers who are drunk and either not able to consent or who wouldn't consent if they were sober.

[Bucks Saint]

He was found guilty by a jury and has been refused an appeal. That just about says it for me.

 

No nonces in football.

 

But no one yet knows why the investigation into his case by the CCRC has been announced as being fast tracked, which is highly unusual

[St Marco]

But no one yet knows why the investigation into his case by the CCRC has been announced as being fast tracked, which is highly unusual

 

I think I read the reason it is being fast tracked is to end the whole media thing around it. Could be wrong.

 

As it is now he is a convicted rapist, judged by jury. Was denied appeal due to the evidence in the first trial. I believe that judge saw how wasted the girl was from CCTV evidence?

 

In the vast majority of high profile jobs whoever committed that crime would be out on their ass. They would have no chance of re-entering a profession that would pay them so much. If it happened to say a doctor, a teacher, a police officer etc they would be never able to work in that field again. My personal view is that it should be no different with entertainers/sports people. He did something that is shocking and anytime he steps out onto a pitch he will be booed from start to finish. It might even go further than that and he could end up assaulted by someone.

 

The guy is guilty and with two sets of law teams he couldn't prove his innocence.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I'm not going to comment on the rights and wrongs of the conviction as I didn't sit in court or receive guidance on the law from the judge.

 

My first point is that convicted rapists should serve more than two and a half years. Had he served a " proper" sentence this wouldn't have arisen because after 6/7 years inside I doubt he'd be capable of resuming a career.

 

Second point. Unless you work with kids , you really can't start legislating what excons can and can't do. Rod Liddle was a lone voice on QT last night , some ridiculous arguments were put forward by other guests and audience." It was OK if he was a plumber" but not a footballer was one, as if its OK to call round women's houses to mend the boiler, but not to play football in front of them. Another guest claimed he shouldn't play in front of thousands. So therefore its OK for him to play for Eastleigh, but not sheff utd ( what happens if his team with 100's of supports plays a big club in the cup, does he get dropped). The simple fact is you can not start changing your mind depending on who it is or what he does. You either believe ex offenders are entitled to work or their not. They are either allowed to play sport or they're not. The size of the crowd or the league you play in is surely irrelevant.

 

Thirdly, why is it impossible to discuss rape in a rational and sensible way. This type of rape is clearly different than a masked stranger jumping out of a bush, yet to say so will get you no end of trouble. There has been so much moralising nonsense over this. I read that this Charlie bird who resigned her position had previously tweeted her excitement over meeting mike Tyson . The BBC employed Dirty Den who killed somebody, yet some paxo wannabe was desperately trying to humiliate Gregg Dyke over the fas response.

[Dangermouth]

Be interesting to see what Redslo makes of this, him being American and a lawyer and all and because it'll help him understand the difficulties of the modern English psyche.

 

Here's a bit from a paper >....http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11226209/Ched-Evans-Sorry-but-all-rapes-are-not-the-same.html . A lot of thought has gone into that and it's not written on his behalf.

 

Juries being crap and miscarriages of justice occur far too often...they let Harry Redknapp off and I have never met anyone who didn't believe he was up to something. And that includes some people who actually knew him.

 

He can't move abroad til his sentence is finished because he's still on parole, but agree he should move abroad regardless. Wherever he works he's a target because his mug's been all over the press and whatever happens he's been branded.

 

I can't see him as a role model unless people are particularly stupid and parents (somehow) will sing his praises. That is unless kids nowadays are especially stupid and don't understand right and wrong at all. I can't see how 2.5 years in prison can be said to be 'getting away with it'. I can't see how anyone could be so stupid as to want to then play football in this country and expect anyone to want him/her, certainly as matters stand. He might stand a chance if he wins his appeal, but really I think emigration's his only real choice.

 

Whether sentencing needs to be looked at is another matter, but perhaps the debate should be raised. A petition could easily get it debated in Parliament now.

 

I would hope that even the most rabid right-winger could distinguish between the facts as known of this case and one that happened not too long ago in Rochdale and treat them differently. In that one an elderly woman (70s or older) went to get her pint of milk at 7am. She was very badly beaten and raped. That's not an argument for him, if people are so stupid as to think that it is but to help contextualise this case relative to many that are almost too abhorrent for words. I would think the likes of SOG might well even know of worse ... so perhaps before considering the sentence you might want to consider what those who brought it in took on board in so doing.

[CB Fry]

I'm not going to comment on the rights and wrongs of the conviction as I didn't sit in court or receive guidance on the law from the judge.

 

My first point is that convicted rapists should serve more than two and a half years. Had he served a " proper" sentence this wouldn't have arisen because after 6/7 years inside I doubt he'd be capable of resuming a career.

 

Second point. Unless you work with kids , you really can't start legislating what excons can and can't do. Rod Liddle was a lone voice on QT last night , some ridiculous arguments were put forward by other guests and audience." It was OK if he was a plumber" but not a footballer was one, as if its OK to call round women's houses to mend the boiler, but not to play football in front of them. Another guest claimed he shouldn't play in front of thousands. So therefore its OK for him to play for Eastleigh, but not sheff utd ( what happens if his team with 100's of supports plays a big club in the cup, does he get dropped). The simple fact is you can not start changing your mind depending on who it is or what he does. You either believe ex offenders are entitled to work or their not. They are either allowed to play sport or they're not. The size of the crowd or the league you play in is surely irrelevant.

 

Thirdly, why is it impossible to discuss rape in a rational and sensible way. This type of rape is clearly different than a masked stranger jumping out of a bush, yet to say so will get you no end of trouble. There has been so much moralising nonsense over this. I read that this Charlie bird who resigned her position had previously tweeted her excitement over meeting mike Tyson . The BBC employed Dirty Den who killed somebody, yet some paxo wannabe was desperately trying to humiliate Gregg Dyke over the fas response.

 

Since when do footballers get contracts on "entitlement"?

 

If he's "entitled" to play for Sheffield United, then Jessica Ennis is "entitled" to take her name off their stand, sponsors are entitled to pull their sponsorship and fans are entitled to write, chant, complain etc. They are entitled to make it not commercially and corporately viable for SUFC to employ him. Trump his supposed "entitlement".

 

I really like Nigel Clough and I'd like to think he'd resign if SUFC go ahead with signing him. He's entitled to do that too.

 

The plumber comparison is totally retarded. If Ched Evans wants the same treatment as a plumber then he can come round my house and bleed my radiators.

 

There are other professions where he wouldn't get immediate re employment back where he was, with the wider entertainment industry being a pretty decent example. A better example than effing plumbing.

Edited 14 November, 2014 by CB Fry

[aintforever]

I love the way people think they can read bits of info on websites and in papers and think they can make a judgement on wether he is guilty or not.

 

There are some f*cking dumb people on here.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Since when do footballers get contracts on "entitlement"?

 

If he's "entitled" to play for Sheffield United, then Jessica Ennis is "entitled" to take her name off their stand, sponsors are entitled to pull their sponsorship and fans are entitled to write, chant, complain etc. They are entitled to make it not commercially and corporately viable for SUFC to employ him. Trump his supposed "entitlement".

 

I really like Nigel Clough and I'd like to think he'd resign if SUFC go ahead with signing him. He's entitled to do that too.

 

The plumber comparison is totally retarded. If Ched Evans wants the same treatment as a plumber then he can come round my house and bleed my radiators.

 

There are other professions where he wouldn't get immediate re employment back where he was, with the wider entertainment industry being a pretty decent example. A better example than effing plumbing.

 

Number 1, I didn't bring up the plumber some politician on QT did. Her point was he could earn his living as a plumber but not a footballer, I was questioning this logic. It really isn't coherent.

 

Of course Ennis is entitled to do what she wants. Just as he is entitled to play football if Sheff Utd believe he is good enough. Unless you're trying to say ex convicts shouldn't work if someone is willing to employ them. Everybody is just jumping on a bandwagon , I don't recall this amount of fuss when that keeper killed those kids.

 

As for the entertainment profession , Pete Townsend seems to make a decent living after accepting a caution for possessing child porn, and everybody was wilfully blind when it came to Michael Jackson. Nobody stops ex convicts playing guitar or acting, why should they be stopped playing football? Whether anybody will pay to watch them or buy their records is irrelevant, part of their rehabilitation is being able to try and earn a living .

[scotty]

Why is this on our main board?

 

I've been wondering this as well. Its not saints related in any way, why isn't it on the general sports or lounge pages?

[kwsaint]

I picked up the following, which is a précis of the court summary

 

The facts of the case are that Evans received a text telling him his friend had got a girl. Evans then changed direction and made his way to the hotel where he conned hotel staff into giving him a key and let himself into the room. He brought along two other men and they were positioned outside the window in order to film him. Evans then proceeded to pervgorm a second the semi conscious woman he found in the room and then had sex with her, at no point did she perform any sex acts on him. When the hotel porter became concerned and went to check on the woman his friend answered the door and denied Evans was there. After the attack evans left by the fire escape. The courts ruled that the woman did not consent to sexual activity, but the first man could not be proven to not reasonably believe she did consent so got a not guilty verdict. Evans however was shown to have no reasonable grounds to believe that the woman (a passed out stranger who had no contact with him until he performed sex acts on her)consented so was found guilty and later found to have no grounds for an appeal.

 

How he still protests his innocence beggars belief. Presumably he thinks that because she did not object at the time (being too drunk) that it was OK. All he has admitted to is cheating on his girlfriend.

 

I am all for rehabilitation and giving people chances. Ex convicts should be able to work. Just not sure that Ched Evans warrants it at the moment. He needs to take responsibility for his actions, accept the consequences and move on. Maybe then he can play again, but at the moment I would not want to see him play.

[egg]

But she says she doesn't remember anything after she left the club.* She says she could not consent to going back to a hotel with McDonald because she was too drunk.* Her legal team said McDonald saw she was off her face and led her away.* He took advantage of a vulnerable young woman (vulnerable because she had alcohol and drugs in her system) and then phoned his mate to join in.* Surely they both raped her?

 

McDonald admitted inviting Evans to join in (allegedly with her consent) so doesn't that make McDonald a rapist?* If the jury don't think McDonald raped her for some reason, surely at the very least McDonald is an accessory to rape?

 

If you believe she could consent to McDonald and not Evans then that opens a whole can of worms:

 

1. Is she then lying that McDonald raped her?

2. Is McDonald an accessory to rape for finding a heavily drunk girl and inviting his mate to have sex with her in his presence?

3.*At what point is she not able to consent?* Before she met McDonald she drank two large glasses of wine, four double vodkas, sambuca and she had cocaine and cannabis in her system. She was seen on the floor in a takeaway. An hour later she was having sex with two men. One's a rapist the other is an everyday citizen. How do they justify letting one off and convicting the other.

 

I'm not saying he is innocent, just something doesn't fit. They are both arseholes anyway, but so are 100,000 other young guys and girls who sh*g strangers who are drunk and either not able to consent or who wouldn't consent if they were sober.

 

Blimey. You're over analysing something, and blindly speculating. I haven't read a transcript of the evidence and I doubt you have either.

 

The jury heard it all and decided beyond all reasonable doubt that Evans was guilty.

 

The fact that the other bloke was acquitted doesn't mean that the jury "found him innocent". They could have done but having defended more criminal cases (including rape) than I care to remember, I suspect that the jury had some doubt, hence he was not found guilty.

 

The jury, having heard the evidence, had to determine guilt. In doing so they would have had to consider the issue of consent.

 

Mcdonald and Evans cases were different. She went with McDonald but Evans came along later. That difference may have caused some doubt re McDonald. There may well have been something else, I don't know, but there is a difference that may have been the difference in the jurors mind.

 

If McDonald was fortunate to be acquitted it doesn't follow that Evans should also have been.

[Smirking_Saint]

I love the way people think they can read bits of info on websites and in papers and think they can make a judgement on wether he is guilty or not.

 

There are some f*cking dumb people on here.

 

He was convicted by a jury.... He is guilty

[CB Fry]

Number 1, I didn't bring up the plumber some politician on QT did. Her point was he could earn his living as a plumber but not a footballer, I was questioning this logic. It really isn't coherent.

 

Of course Ennis is entitled to do what she wants. Just as he is entitled to play football if Sheff Utd believe he is good enough. Unless you're trying to say ex convicts shouldn't work if someone is willing to employ them. Everybody is just jumping on a bandwagon , I don't recall this amount of fuss when that keeper killed those kids.

 

As for the entertainment profession , Pete Townsend seems to make a decent living after accepting a caution for possessing child porn, and everybody was wilfully blind when it came to Michael Jackson. Nobody stops ex convicts playing guitar or acting, why should they be stopped playing football? Whether anybody will pay to watch them or buy their records is irrelevant, part of their rehabilitation is being able to try and earn a living .

 

There are plenty of figures in the entertainment industry who have seen their careers wrecked by convictions.

 

He can try and earn a living but no football club is obliged to give him one. Let's see if those taking pre-emptive action against by removing sponsorship from SUFC succeed. I'd like to think so.

 

Obviously all the cases you roll out are all identical and Luke McCormack didn't accept guilt and apologise to his victims. Oh. He did. And there was plenty of fuss at the time. Weak memory you have there.

 

Part of Evans "rehabilitation" might start by doing something similar, but probably 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.

[egg]

He was convicted by a jury.... He is guilty

 

Amen to that.

[CB Fry]

He was convicted by a jury.... He is guilty

That was aintforever's point in fairness.

[Lord Duckhunter]

There are plenty of figures in the entertainment industry who have seen their careers wrecked by convictions.

 

He can try and earn a living but no football club is obliged to give him one. Let's see if those taking pre-emptive action against by removing sponsorship from SUFC succeed. I'd like to think so.

 

Obviously all the cases you roll out are all identical and Luke McCormack didn't accept guilt and apologise to his victims. Oh. He did. And there was plenty of fuss at the time. Weak memory you have there.

 

Part of Evans "rehabilitation" might start by doing something similar, but probably 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.

 

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.

[egg]

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.

 

Personality has nothing to do with it. Football is a priveliged profession. Those who play it are in the public eye, and role model.

 

I mentioned earlier that solicitors can't expect to practice if convicted of rape, despite having served there sentence. After all, doing the porridge doesn't take away what they've done. Footballers are also professionals in a position of authority and should be treated similarly imo.

 

Here's the rules for solicitors:

 

http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/suitabilitytest/part2/content.page

 

Any good reason why footballers should be treated more leniently?

[Smirking_Saint]

That was aintforever's point in fairness.

 

Fair do's

 

Ive only have read this thread in all fairness. A lot of drivvel over these pages

[Sour Mash]

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.

Spot on.

 

Personality has nothing to do with it. Football is a priveliged profession. Those who play it are in the public eye, and role model.

 

I mentioned earlier that solicitors can't expect to practice if convicted of rape, despite having served there sentence. After all, doing the porridge doesn't take away what they've done. Footballers are also professionals in a position of authority and should be treated similarly imo.

 

Here's the rules for solicitors:

 

http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/suitabilitytest/part2/content.page

 

Any good reason why footballers should be treated more leniently?

Solicitors should be treated differently because of their position within the legal industry and the position of trust and influence they have within it. Not really relevant to footballers.

 

Which professions do you think someone like Ched Evans should be allowed to work in?

[L_O_Z]

Blimey. You're over analysing something, and blindly speculating. I haven't read a transcript of the evidence and I doubt you have either.

 

The jury heard it all and decided beyond all reasonable doubt that Evans was guilty.

 

The fact that the other bloke was acquitted doesn't mean that the jury "found him innocent". They could have done but having defended more criminal cases (including rape) than I care to remember, I suspect that the jury had some doubt, hence he was not found guilty.

 

The jury, having heard the evidence, had to determine guilt. In doing so they would have had to consider the issue of consent.

 

Mcdonald and Evans cases were different. She went with McDonald but Evans came along later. That difference may have caused some doubt re McDonald. There may well have been something else, I don't know, but there is a difference that may have been the difference in the jurors mind.

 

If McDonald was fortunate to be acquitted it doesn't follow that Evans should also have been.

 

It still can't get my head around it. She says she remembers nothing after leaving the club and the whole case is based on her not being able to consent because she was too drunk to. They were in the room at the same time. Maybe if Evans turned up an hour after McDonald left then that could be different (although she still claims she didn't consent to McDonald either) but the 3 of them were there together.

 

If the jury feel that she went willingly (she says she was too drunk to consent) then she's either lying that McDonald raped her or she's mistaken. If she's mistaken about McDonald how can they be 100% that Evans raped her.

 

As you have experience in this area is it normal to serve 2.5 years in prison for rape? I genuinly have no idea how long people spend inside. I have read that if there is more than one offender acting together or if the offender ejaculated then it is 8 not 5 years? Even though McDonald told Evans where the drunk girl he raped was and was present at the time I assume that doesn't count as "more than one offender acting together" otherwise he'd have got 8 not 5 years. I also assume he never ejaculated for the same reason?

[Bearsy]

I also assume he never ejaculated for the same reason?

 

Eww I wouldn't assume that... I wouldn't even want to think about it!

 

I don't actually care what happens to this bro, I hope no club picks him up tho. I agree that from what I read here tho, that his mate should have done a stretch too for being accomplice. It may be harsh i spose cos these situations can happen to the best of bros, but I would bang them both up under the "Listen bros, we're trying to have a civilisation here!" Regulations

[egg]

Spot on.

 

Solicitors should be treated differently because of their position within the legal industry and the position of trust and influence they have within it. Not really relevant to footballers.

 

Which professions do you think someone like Ched Evans should be allowed to work in?

 

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.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

one tweet from a random weirdo isn't it?

 

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.