Ched Evans

[GazLCFC]

Genuine question, how did the other bloke get found not guilty if the ruling against Evans was made on the basis of her not being in a fit state to give consent?

Were the two events some hours apart?

She went to the room with him didn't she, I assume there was intent and agreement to get it on. Evens joined in afterwards

 

[Ike O'Noclassed]

She went to the room with him didn't she, I assume there was intent and agreement to get it on. Evens joined in afterwards

In Chedworld, imbibing noxious substances such as alcohol has an increasingly toxic effect with the passage of time, and makes you more insensible and unable to exercise freewill, though posting to Facebook remains unaffected.... allegedly.

 

[Blue Maniac]

Eh? What the frig was I or were you on about? I'm doubting myself now

Kluivert. Caused an accident in which someone died. Community service. I thought that's what you meant.

 

[Blue Maniac]

She went to the room with him didn't she, I assume there was intent and agreement to get it on. Evens joined in afterwards

Dangerous assumption there man. Even if a woman goes to a bloke's house with him, enters his bedroom and strips bollock naked, that isn't consent or anything like it.

 

[fitz]

Kluivert. Caused an accident in which someone died. Community service. I thought that's what you meant.

Tis was

 

[ThaiSweetChilli]

My issue with all of this is that what does he do now?

He's got to work and get on with his life. He committed a crime, he's done his custodial sentence and is now finishing the rest on probation. He is, by law, allowed to return to working in some capacity. Where do people expect him to go? He's a professional footballer and so he should be able to return to football without being petitioned out of every possible opportunity.

Even if he worked at Burger King, people would still be saying "look there's Ched Evans that rapist, I can't believe he works for Burger King."

Football is what he knows and what he's good at and he should now be allowed to play it. The media have made this a much bigger issue than it is and have ruined this man's career. If he had a lower profile job, they wouldn't have done that. He should be allowed to play football IMO.

 

[Mawsley]

i can't reply without resorting to insults. So *tag*, someone else do it.

 

[Mawsley]

In fact, **** it, the **** will never play in football again so I don't give a **** what others think. Just like in almost every film made ever, the good side won. This thread and its handful of Wheeltapers Club rejects can go languish in the ignore thread pile.

And, with a Friday free, I'm going to celebrate the crushing of Ched Evans by walking the dogs.

Three cheers for our side. Huzzah.

 

[ChrisFilter]

My issue with all of this is that what does he do now?

He's got to work and get on with his life. He committed a crime, he's done his custodial sentence and is now finishing the rest on probation. He is, by law, allowed to return to working in some capacity. Where do people expect him to go? He's a professional footballer and so he should be able to return to football without being petitioned out of every possible opportunity.

Even if he worked at Burger King, people would still be saying "look there's Ched Evans that rapist, I can't believe he works for Burger King."

Football is what he knows and what he's good at and he should now be allowed to play it. The media have made this a much bigger issue than it is and have ruined this man's career. If he had a lower profile job, they wouldn't have done that. He should be allowed to play football IMO.

I rather think that 'convicted rapist' Ched Evans ruined his own career, for ****s sake. I'm no fan of the media but they're not in the wrong on this one, even if their motives are commercial rather than moral. The media view is a bell weather for public mood and, happily, the public mood seems to be 'no to rapists'.

You're right. The guy is screwed. The consequences of his actions are far greater because of his public profile. Shouldn't have raped a girl, should he? He'll get a job somewhere where women's rights mean **** all. They'll deserve each other.

 

[RHYDAL]

The facts as I see them.....

He has been convicted of rape.
He has served the appointed time inside.
He is free to seek employment.
The employment he seeks will be in front of several thousand witnesses, cameras and police so will not afford an opportunity to re-offend.

Anything else is just political agenda, smoke and bluster.

 

[bocadillo]

Dangerous assumption there man. Even if a woman goes to a bloke's house with him, enters his bedroom and strips bollock naked, that isn't consent or anything like it.

Bollock naked? You must know some strange women, BM!

 

[FryattFox]

Dangerous assumption there man. Even if a woman goes to a bloke's house with him, enters his bedroom and strips bollock naked, that isn't consent or anything like it.

Depends how enthusiastically she performs these actions...

 

[Hector]

I would normally regard myself as taking a relatively hardline in favour of the the alleged victim in rape cases. However, I've found myself drawn into reading a lot of detail about this case now and I find it baffling and disturbing. It seems incomprehensible to me that a verdict of guilty of rape "beyond reasonable doubt" could be delivered on the basis of the evidence, which was virtually non-existent, that a rape actually took place. One can't help but wonder whether the judge (in summing up) and jury were influenced by factors other than evidence, such as the manner of the defendent in the dock. A very tenuous basis for destroying the life and career of a young man. Against my expectations I actually find myself feeling sorry for him. The furore that has been whipped up over his efforts to resume his career seems reminiscent of the witch hunts of less enlightened times.

 

[homer]

Maybe the jury and the judge should have read the evidence as described, distilled and summarised by the Internet, rather than the actual evidence developed within the criminal justice system and then presented to them formally and completely in a Court of Law

They are well stoopid, clearly

 

[pork pie fox]

Maybe the jury and the judge should have read the evidence as described, distilled and summarised by the Internet, rather than the actual evidence developed within the criminal justice system and then presented to them formally and completely in a Court of Law

They are well stoopid, clearly

Don't be ridiculous homer, even Steve Bruce knows more than them:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30742947

 

[Real Sharapova]

Don't be ridiculous homer, even Steve Bruce knows more than them:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30742947

Jesus wept. Football people really are removed from reality, aren't they?

 

[homer]

Don't be ridiculous homer, even Steve Bruce knows more than them:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30742947

Sweet Holy Shit

 

[pork pie fox]

Jesus wept. Football people really are removed from reality, aren't they?

Sweet Holy Shit

Pair of cynics. I'll bet he wouldn't have said that without a full review of the full goings on in court, carefully examining each bit of evidence. For all I know, he may have sat in court through the whole case. I doubt he'd make such a statement without full knowledge of it anyway, would he?

 

[Hector]

Maybe the jury and the judge should have read the evidence as described, distilled and summarised by the Internet, rather than the actual evidence developed within the criminal justice system and then presented to them formally and completely in a Court of Law

They are well stoopid, clearly

Years spent trying to counter the ill-informed nonsense spouted on the Internet by anti-GM campaigners has, I hope, made me more careful than that. My main source regarding the Ched Evans case was the official full transcript of the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWCA Crim 2559, No. 2012/030067/D2). The Summary of this has already been referred to in this thread (post 65). That site includes a link to the full transcript, and the views I expressed in my last mail are based on a thorough reading of that. Actually I think reading it in black and white strips it of the emotions, and other extraneous factors such as the body language of the participants, that go with the presentation of a case "formally and completely in a Court of Law", when it comes to trial by jury.

My view is an honest opinion based on the official transcript. However, I am not a lawyer and the three justices reviewing the case did not take the same view!

 

[pork pie fox]

Years spent trying to counter the ill-informed nonsense spouted on the Internet by anti-GM campaigners has, I hope, made me more careful than that. My main source regarding the Ched Evans case was the official full transcript of the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWCA Crim 2559, No. 2012/030067/D2). The Summary of this has already been referred to in this thread (post 65). That site includes a link to the full transcript, and the views I expressed in my last mail are based on a thorough reading of that. Actually I think reading it in black and white strips it of the emotions, and other extraneous factors such as the body language of the participants, that go with the presentation of a case "formally and completely in a Court of Law", when it comes to trial by jury.

My view is an honest opinion based on the official transcript. However, I am not a lawyer and the three justices reviewing the case did not take the same view!

To be fair, Hector, I doubt Steve Bruce has gone to those lengths.