Ched Evans

Log in to stop seeing adverts
This page may contain links to companies such as eBay and Amazon. As an affiliate of these sites I may earn commission if you click the link and make a purchase

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mawsley said:
Maybe it goes back to the level of contrition expressed? Purely personally, this is the key aspect to this for me. FWIW I was strongly opposed to Hughes getting back into football as well.
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe that it would have blown over as quick as the Hughes thing if he'd said sorry. Clubs pissing about on whether or not they want him or not is helping drag it out though.
 
fitz said:
I find it hard to believe that it would have blown over as quick as the Hughes thing if he'd said sorry. Clubs pissing about on whether or not they want him or not is helping drag it out though.
Click to expand...

Agree on all counts - but probably stemming from the sense of injustice and the fact that Evans still contends that what he did was acceptable and not rape. Hughes knows what he did and he has to live with that.
 
Mawsley said:
Agree on all counts - but probably stemming from the sense of injustice and the fact that Evans still contends that what he did was acceptable and not rape. Hughes knows what he did and he has to live with that.
Click to expand...

The injustice for me is all about the sentencing. I see a number of politicians are making their mouths go on the subject of him getting a job probably more than are calling for tougher and more expensive sentences.
 
Mawsley said:
It's the Beef one.

I like the idea of Pickled Onion but it's just not a nice experience.
Click to expand...

Pickled Onion on a Red Leicester sandwich, simply lovely.
 
I don't get it. Who would threaten to rape someone's daughter for employing a rapist? Can't whichever idiot did that see the irony?
 
City Fan said:
I don't get it. Who would threaten to rape someone's daughter for employing a rapist? Can't whichever idiot did that see the irony?
Click to expand...

This already happened last autumn when Richard and Judy's daughter was threatened with rape by Twitter trolls after defending some stuff her mother said.

You're right about the absurdity of these people's reasoning though. It's as if they're saying "rape disgusts me so much I'm going to rape you as a punishment".

http://news.sky.com/story/1354063/judy-finnigans-daughter-slams-rape-trolls
 
Last edited:
Mawsley said:
Maybe it goes back to the level of contrition expressed? Purely personally, this is the key aspect to this for me. FWIW I was strongly opposed to Hughes getting back into football as well.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Mistakes in the past (in letting players back in) shouldn't mean we keep making them. It also sickens me that Mike Tyson is rolled out as a punch line in films despite him being a convicted sex offender.
 
Matt_B said:
Exactly. Mistakes in the past (in letting players back in) shouldn't mean we keep making them. It also sickens me that Mike Tyson is rolled out as a punch line in films despite him being a convicted sex offender.
Click to expand...

Serious question, has Lee Hughes re-offended since getting back into football?

Has it had an impact on the amount of young football fans who think it's acceptable to drive dangerously?

What we are basically saying is that a person guilty of crime A or B should not play football because it will send a message to people so inherently thick that they cannot see it as anything other than an endorsement of that crime, in this case rape.

I don't think we can or should ban things based around some members of the general public being so unintelligent that they can't develop their own judgement that doesn't include rape being acceptable.

There may well be valid reasons to keep him away from football, I just don't think the role model / endorsement argument is entirely valid.
 
Matt_B said:
It doesn't matter how drunk she was, is she didn't give consent, or was deemed incapable of giving consent, then it is rape. This is why it needs changing from an attitude of "no means no" to "yes means yes".

It you aren't planning on taking advantage of somebody then I really can't see why anyone would have an issue with this. It's far too easy to try to attach blame to the woman because it makes us uncomfortable as men to think that "one of our own" would do something so vile.

I wouldn't get a second chance as a teacher, and rightly so. Nor would a doctor or a police officer. Rightly or wrongly, footballers are held as role models for young adults. The lack of even a morsel of regret concerns me. He wouldn't have to admit he raped her, he could even accept that it has caused her a lot of emotional distress and see that his actions weren't right. He hasn't. I'm not convinced that, given another chance, he wouldn't do it again.
Click to expand...

Matt_B said:
Because "assumed consent" is a ridiculous and dangerous idea. You are surely not ignorant enough to think that it has to be the very word "yes", but seeking positive consent isn't a bad thing. I don't understand why you think it would be?
Click to expand...

First may I say that I agree with your sentiments on this issue, but there is a grey area here I think, that impacts a lot of people.

Assuming there is consent given after consuming alcohol, how far should your average man or woman go to determine if the persons decision making ability is impaired?

I honestly don't know the answer, but it seems to me entirely possible and likely that there is a window where the decision is impaired but the other party has no reason to believe so. Especially if alcohol is affecting the judgement of both parties.
 
Last edited:
Feriol said:
Assuming there is consent given after consuming alcohol, how far should your average man or woman go to determine if the persons decision making ability is impaired?

I honestly don't know the answer, but it seems to me entirely possible and likely that there is a window where the decision is impaired but the other party has no reason to believe so. Especially if alcohol is affecting the judgement of both parties.
Click to expand...

California has just implemented "Yes means Yes" into law for colleges. It basically says:

"Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent,"

So if the person is not reciprocating actively, or not saying anything, or barely conscious and drooling, that doesn't mean consent. Too many men would argue if they initiate sex with a woman, unless she actively protests, they it's consensual... even if she's barely conscious.

There is a huge debate over here about it - along the lines of, most sex is by nature not explicitly consensual - it's a lot of exploration and experimentation. However, the law is designed to shift social norms and expectations to what consensual sex looks like and moves the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused.

The biggest reason it's succeeded in becoming law in parts of the USA, is because of the huge numbers of sexual assaults in colleges and schools - something like 50% women experience some sort of non-consensual sexual contact.

So, On California campuses, consent is no longer a matter of not struggling or not saying no. If the student initiating the sexual encounter doesn’t receive an enthusiastic “yes,” either verbally or physically, then there is no consent. If the student is incapacitated due to drugs or alcohol, there is no consent.
 
Last edited:
NYC Fox said:
California has just implemented "Yes means Yes" into law for colleges. It basically says:

"Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent,"

So if the person is not reciprocating actively, or not saying anything, or barely conscious and drooling, that doesn't mean consent. Too many men would argue if they initiate sex with a woman, unless she actively protests, they it's consensual... even if she's barely conscious.

There is a huge debate over here about it - along the lines of, most sex is by nature not explicitly consensual - it's a lot of exploration and experimentation. However, the law is designed to shift social norms and expectations to what consensual sex looks like and moves the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused.

The biggest reason it's succeeded in becoming law in parts of the USA, is because of the huge numbers of sexual assaults in colleges and schools - something like 50% women experience some sort of non-consensual sexual contact.

So, On California campuses, consent is no longer a matter of not struggling or not saying no. If the student initiating the sexual encounter doesn’t receive an enthusiastic “yes,” either verbally or physically, then there is no consent. If the student is incapacitated due to drugs or alcohol, there is no consent.
Click to expand...

Some group of some sort were distributing sexual consent form back when I was in college....
 
Consent is the wrong word.

We should be teaching our kids (sons mainly but not exclusively) to look for enthusiasm.
 
This thread is incredibly depressing. I sometimes wonder if I am actually of the same species as some people
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Log in to stop seeing adverts

P Pld Pts
1Liverpool1639
2Chelsea1735
3Arsenal1733
4Nottm F1731
5Bournemouth1728
6Aston Villa1728
7Manchester C  1727
8Newcastle1726
9Fulham1725
10Brighton1725
11Tottenham 1723
12Brentford1723
13Manchester U1722
14West Ham1720
15Everton1616
16Palace1716
17Leicester1714
18Wolves1712
19Ipswich1712
20Southampton176

Latest posts

Back
Top