Ched Evans

[mune ni kamome]

I haven't read all the pages so this may have been mentioned already. I believe that officially he is still serving his sentence for the five years. Just because he is out after two years just means he is on probation for the remainder of the sentence. Therefore he has not actually served his punishment until the full time is up.

 

[Beach Seagull]

L
The victim didn't report the rape to the police.
The footballers mentioned sex to the police themselves.

So the footballers walked into a police and 'mentioned' what had happened? Surely to be arrested a complaint must've been made by the 'victim?'

 

[drew]

I just saw it as a compiling of evidence that proved greater than just a case of he said she said. Text messages, booking of hotel rooms, intent, friends in on it, stories between the defendants not corroborating each other, testimony of witnesses. It's the aggregate total of evidence rather than simplifying down to suggesting it's merely a victims word against a defendants.

Even down to the moment McDonald was cleared in court and the two of them butted heads in court, this is genuinely a case of one horrible arrogant individual that frankly I don't believe should ever be allowed to grace a football pitch again. He had everything at his feet and he blew it.

I'd have a new rule from the FA and PFA, if you're excluded in anyway from being able to coach kids football (CRB checks…), then you're not allowed to play in the professional game. Simple as that.

What is the big FA agenda - RESPECT. Evans has none and doesn't deserve to be part of our game.

He deserves his freedom back, his life, but he can join the job queue like everyone else.

Jesus, how righteous you are. So a 17 year old gets done for drug possession and has a record. He gets clean but can never play the professional game because he can't get a CBS check!!

You know what though Lawro, for some reason, perhaps my own honesty and moral compass, but I'd expect and would assume 99% of us to make sure she got home safe in that state, not to take advantage.

Everything you say to describe her actions and her state of mind would only serve to reinforce my opinion of what a couple of scumbags these two are and that Evans got just what he deserved. No state of a women ever justifies taking advantage of her. They just treated her like a piece of meat. Awful. I can't believe he is still protesting his innocence. A glimmer of contrition even would show some sense of what an appalling way to behave it was, even if he ultimately doesn't believe the rape charge was fair, it was nonetheless despicable behaviour.

They were scumbags, just as a few of our own youth players appeared to be and no doubt the same as plenty that go out on a Friday or Saturday night on the pull. You also seem to paint a picture of this girl as someone totally innocent and whose choices that night did not contribute to the situation she found herself in. I agree that he could be contrite about the the way he behave without acknowledging he raped her.

Except they were not the exact same circumstances.

One involved a guy meeting a woman in town, her getting in a taxi and going to a hotel with him, and when the two of them are alone, they have sex.

The other involved a guy making no prior arrangements with a woman, showing up in a hotel room where she is with another guy (as I read it, she stopped having sex with him when Ched arrived, but they may have, er, naturally come to a stop), then when she stops having sex with the guy she had, until then, been alone with he has sex with her while, if I read it right, the first guy is still in the room and some friends look in through the window.

This jury seemed to see that distinction and find that the first guy had, or reasonably assumed to have, her consent. They were alone, she willing went to a hotel room alone with him. Whereas it wasn't reasonable for the guy who showed up later without clear indication she was aware of him intending to join them to assume consent to sex with an audience.

She claimed she could not remember anything from the time of leaving the nightclub. Some vague recollections of the kebab shop but not much else. How could the Jury then decide that she had consensual sex with Clayton whom she met after leaving the nightclub. As for the hotel room, wasn't that booked by Evans long before they even met the girl. He was visting Rhyl so it's not surprising that he would book a room somewhere!


As for the general point of the thread, i wouldn't want him playing for BHA until he had cleared his name.

 

[Acker79]

She claimed she could not remember anything from the time of leaving the nightclub. Some vague recollections of the kebab shop but not much else. How could the Jury then decide that she had consensual sex with Clayton whom she met after leaving the nightclub. As for the hotel room, wasn't that booked by Evans long before they even met the girl. He was visting Rhyl so it's not surprising that he would book a room somewhere!

How far back in the night she can remember isn't entirely relevant, because it isn't just about whether or not she consented, but whether the accused can reasonably assume to have her consent.

The man who meets a girl and takes her back to the hotel alone, in the opinion of the jury, can reasonably assume consent (albeit drunken consent).

The man who joins them later and starts having sex in front of an audience can't reasonably assume consent (I would presume the jury thought the idea of having sex in front of an audience is not something women (or most people, I think) typically enjoy, so viewed it as not so reasonable to assume consent (even drunken consent)).

As for who booked the room, I don't recall seeing anything about anyone spelling it out to the girl, but even so, it doesn't change the fact that she met Macdonald in town, went back to a hotel with him, alone, and they started to have sex when there was no one else around and she would probably expect privacy (had she been sober). A sequence of events that is probably quite common in cities up and down the country most nights, so it could be seen as reasonable that Macdonald assumed she had consented.

It isn't so common to go round to your mate's house/hotel room and start having sex with "his" girl, right after he's finished, so the jury apparently didn't see it as reasonable for Ched to assume consent.


They are not "exact same circumstances". It's entirely reasonable for the jury to reach different decision for each of the men.

 

[Acker79]

A pervert hiding in the bushes is a rapist a guy sh*gg*ng some little t*rt who has willingly gone back to a hotel after meeting someone for 1 minute is not. She smelt the pound notes compensation when she realised he was a footballer. Dont care what the right on brigade say he is not a rapist, she was a drunken little t*rt who was pretty much anyones that night, decent young girls dont go back to a guys hotel within minutes of meeting them.

How do you know 'only 11% of rapes are reported to the police?'

Awaits flaming from the NSC PC brigade.

Yeah, it's politically correct to have respect for women as complete human beings instead of treating any of woman who gets drunk and has sex as a tart, as if being sexual or drunk means you give up any right to your own body.

It's all about being holier than thou and getting on our high horses.

These two men got drunk and had sex with someone they met for a minute, where's your disdain for them? They didn't get to know her, they just smelled an easy lay and went for it. A decent guy doesn't do that.


My previous post contains the sources for those stats.

 

[nwgull]

These two men got drunk and had sex with someone they met for a minute, where's your disdain for them? They didn't get to know her, they just smelled an easy lay and went for it. A decent guy doesn't do that.

What a load of white knight bollocks. If a 'decent guy' doesn't have sex with a woman they've just met, then surely you should hold a woman who'd go back to a hotel room with a man she'd just met in similar contempt.

Having sex with easy women is not a crime. Anyone who says it should be is just jealous and bitter that they're not seeing a bit of the action.

 

[The Camel]

Plymouth fans still support their club with Luke McCormack as their captain, what is the difference. Does morality come into it or rather should it.?

McCormack killed those children by accident.

The accident was caused by his negligence, stupidity and downright disregard for the drink/driving laws.

But it was still an accident when all is said and one.

Ched Evans did not rape this girl by accident.

Huge difference.

 

[nwgull]

McCormack killed those children by accident.

The accident was caused by his negligence, stupidity and downright disregard for the drink/driving laws.

But it was still an accident when all is said and one.

Ched Evans did not rape this girl by accident.

Huge difference.

2 Kids are dead and will never grow up; 1 women has drunk sex and will get over it. Huge difference.

 

[thbjenkins]

This is a tricky question facing our society today.
The man faced a court for a criminal offence. The court (our representatives qualified to vent our moral outrage) gave their sentence: imprisonment, loss of liberty.
Now, does society have the right to punish them further by denying them employment that seems to give them a decent wage?
.............discuss further, maybe I should put it up as a poll question.

This is my line of thinking.
Perhaps the sentence he got did not fit the crime. But that being said he has done his time, if the system works then he should be a rehabilitated man.

I also agree with the posters saying that if he was a *insert standard job here* you wouldn't let him work. And as for the teaching reference its a little off, I don't think a footballer and a teacher are comparable in this context. He's not working with kids.

That other side of the coin is that he is in the public eye, and kids/fans look up to him. So he had a responsibility to act right. One which he clearly failed (if conviction is not overturned)

It's a tough topic. Strong moral implications.

I can't help but go back to that he's served (half) his sentence. We have law courts to punish criminals. We shouldn't continue to judge people after they have paid the penalty...With a few exceptions.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Jesus, how righteous you are. So a 17 year old gets done for drug possession and has a record. He gets clean but can never play the professional game because he can't get a CBS check!!



They were scumbags, just as a few of our own youth players appeared to be and no doubt the same as plenty that go out on a Friday or Saturday night on the pull. You also seem to paint a picture of this girl as someone totally innocent and whose choices that night did not contribute to the situation she found herself in. I agree that he could be contrite about the the way he behave without acknowledging he raped her.



She claimed she could not remember anything from the time of leaving the nightclub. Some vague recollections of the kebab shop but not much else. How could the Jury then decide that she had consensual sex with Clayton whom she met after leaving the nightclub. As for the hotel room, wasn't that booked by Evans long before they even met the girl. He was visting Rhyl so it's not surprising that he would book a room somewhere!


As for the general point of the thread, i wouldn't want him playing for BHA until he had cleared his name.

I haven't fully worked out my proposed FA & PFA revised codes of conduct yet, so perhaps the 17 yr old could return after so sort of exclusion period. Once I'm completed my self righteous full draft, I'll let you know.

 

[Acker79]

What a load of white knight bollocks. If a 'decent guy' doesn't have sex with a woman they've just met, then surely you should hold a woman who'd go back to a hotel room with a man she'd just met in similar contempt.

Having sex with easy women is not a crime. Anyone who says it should be is just jealous and bitter that they're not seeing a bit of the action.

That was my point! Beach seagull was being so one sided in his disdain for someone who drunkenly slept with someone they just met while ignoring it was the same for the guys in the situation.

 

[Acker79]

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/17/the...isogyny_and_the_dangers_of_business_as_usual/

 

[Beach Seagull]

Yeah, it's politically correct to have respect for women as complete human beings instead of treating any of woman who gets drunk and has sex as a tart, as if being sexual or drunk means you give up any right to your own body.

It's all about being holier than thou and getting on our high horses.

These two men got drunk and had sex with someone they met for a minute, where's your disdain for them? They didn't get to know her, they just smelled an easy lay and went for it. A decent guy doesn't do that.


My previous post contains the sources for those stats.[/QUOTE]
I can't see where you have cited your sources for those stats.

 

[Beach Seagull]

That was my point! Beach seagull was being so one sided in his disdain for someone who drunkenly slept with someone they just met while ignoring it was the same for the guys in the situation.

I was so 'one sided' because I don't have any disdain for Evans or McDonald in this. My disdain is for the female involved because she has cried 'rape' and almost destroyed the career of a talented young footballer. If she had not claimed she was raped my attitude would be 'so what boy meets girl good luck to them.'

What world do you live in? Why would I have any disdain for guys who have 'pulled?' Its what blokes do!!! I can guarantee you thousands of people are waking up next to someone they (drunkenly) met in a nightclub last night, it happens its the real world. I have no 'disdain' for either party. If I was 20 years younger and not with someone I would happily go into Brighton tonight in order to try and meet a girl.

 

[drew]

I haven't fully worked out my proposed FA & PFA revised codes of conduct yet, so perhaps the 17 yr old could return after so sort of exclusion period. Once I'm completed my self righteous full draft, I'll let you know.

Pardon me for your indignation but it was you who stated it was as simple as that!!

How far back in the night she can remember isn't entirely relevant, because it isn't just about whether or not she consented, but whether the accused can reasonably assume to have her consent.

The man who meets a girl and takes her back to the hotel alone, in the opinion of the jury, can reasonably assume consent (albeit drunken consent).

The man who joins them later and starts having sex in front of an audience can't reasonably assume consent (I would presume the jury thought the idea of having sex in front of an audience is not something women (or most people, I think) typically enjoy, so viewed it as not so reasonable to assume consent (even drunken consent)).

As for who booked the room, I don't recall seeing anything about anyone spelling it out to the girl, but even so, it doesn't change the fact that she met Macdonald in town, went back to a hotel with him, alone, and they started to have sex when there was no one else around and she would probably expect privacy (had she been sober). A sequence of events that is probably quite common in cities up and down the country most nights, so it could be seen as reasonable that Macdonald assumed she had consented.

It isn't so common to go round to your mate's house/hotel room and start having sex with "his" girl, right after he's finished, so the jury apparently didn't see it as reasonable for Ched to assume consent.


They are not "exact same circumstances". It's entirely reasonable for the jury to reach different decision for each of the men.

Is that actually a point of law? If she, as she claimed, was in such a state that she can't remember how she got to the hotel, why is it reasonable to assume she went there willingly or, more to the point, knowingly. If you assume she went there knowingly then why is not unreasonable to also assume that she consented to Evans. I think the point is that surely there is enough reasonable doubt?

 

[Acker79]

I can't see where you have cited your sources for those stats.

Where the text is blue, it's a link.

 

[Acker79]

Is that actually a point of law? If she, as she claimed, was in such a state that she can't remember how she got to the hotel, why is it reasonable to assume she went there willingly or, more to the point, knowingly. If you assume she went there knowingly then why is not unreasonable to also assume that she consented to Evans. I think the point is that surely there is enough reasonable doubt?

It was in one of the links earlier in this thread that e jury had to consider if they believed she had explicitly given consent, or if it was reasonable for him to assume she had given consent.

That there are no reports or him dragging her into the taxi, no reports of him telling her where to go, it would appear reasonable to the jury that as far as macdonald experienced, she was a willing participant.

You may consider there to be reasonable doubt. Perhaps I would if I was in the jury room and had heard all the evidence, perhaps you wouldn't. There's a difference between reading a transcript years after the fact and being in the court room and discussing it with people who have also sat through the evidence and had the experience of people talking to them rather than reading the words emotionless on a computer screen. (I say this only to explain my reluctance to say definitively whether I would or wouldn't find reasonable doubt, not because I'm trying to suggest a lack of validity to anyone drawing their conclusions from the text).

But all of that feels like a distraction to me, a distraction to my central point that it wasn't a case of two drunk men, each having sex with the same drunk woman in exactly the same circumstances. One met a drunk girl in town, and took her back to a hotel room alone. One came to a room where a drunk girl had just had sex with someone, and then had a go with her in front of an audience.

They are different circumstances. That the jury treated them differently is not an indication of their decision being unsafe, but of that fact; the circumstances around how ey came to be having sex with the woman were different.

 

[clippedgull]

As for the hotel room, wasn't that booked by Evans long before they even met the girl. He was visting Rhyl so it's not surprising that he would book a room somewhere!

The room was booked by Evans in advance for McDonald because a party was/had been going on at Evans parents house and there was not enough room for McDonald to sleepover. Evans gained access to the room by lying to the security guard that he had lost his keycard. Evans left by a fire exit.

 

[Beach Seagull]

Where the text is blue, it's a link.

Aha thanks for that was me being thick.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Pardon me for your indignation but it was you who stated it was as simple as that!!

I'm not indignant, I just hadn't thought it through!