Ched Evans

[t8yman]

why the fuck has steve bruce got himself involved? Jesus christ almighty.

My 2p - there are many careers where a rape conviction would prevent you from continuing in that career, I believe the world of pro football might well be one of them. If he wins his appeal - then the argument changes, but until he either wins or loses an appeal - he should keep his head down.

[eFestivals]

You are the idiot... Its just a shame you will never see it. Try a mirror

Care to tell me how it's idiotic to want a fully formed view?

Care to tell me how a half-formed unworkable view is worth something more than the idiotic?

If you have a fully formed view, give it to us. If you don't, be at least smart enough to recognise your own offering as worthless for dealing with the situation.

[feral chile]

Yep, I've already pointed out the logical conflicts within the law's ideas around 'drunk' already in the footie thread.

Ultimately, I'd say that the law is suggesting that women are mentally inferior to men thru the non-logic that is being applied across these two things.

I haven't been in the footie thread, but I can understand your concerns.

What if they're both drunk? Are they raping each other? Also, yu can seem fully functioning while drunk and yet not be fully conscious. I experienced this myself, so I know it happens, luckily not in this type of situation.

In my case, I 'woke up' on my feet, in the middle of a gig, obviously in the middle of cheering on the band. So I knew I'd been 'conscious' even if not self aware in some way.

Now, if I hadn't been on my feet in the middle of a cheer, and instead lying down with someone on top of me....

So these guys who say the girl consented, and these girls who say they woke up in this situation...

Both might be telling the truth from their perspective.

The big problem with rape cases, is if the accused is found not guilty, the accuser becomes guilty by default.

[eFestivals]

Worlds gone mad...

Yep, that started with people giving mad incomplete opinions of what Evans can't do without being able to say what he can do.

The cure to this madness are workable solutions, nothing else.

The situation around Evans doesn't disappear if he's forced out of football, it still requires a workable solution.

Those who are hounding Evans don't offer any workable solutions.

[feral chile]

Yep, that started with people giving mad incomplete opinions of what Evans can't do without being able to say what he can do.

The cure to this madness are workable solutions, nothing else.

The situation around Evans doesn't disappear if he's forced out of football, it still requires a workable solution.

Those who are hounding Evans don't offer any workable solutions.

is this any different from any other convicted offender, apart from the fact that he can't avoid discosing the conviction?

Edited January 9, 2015 by feral chile

[mrtourette]

I haven't been in the footie thread, but I can understand your concerns.

What if they're both drunk? Are they raping each other? Also, yu can seem fully functioning while drunk and yet not be fully conscious. I experienced this myself, so I know it happens, luckily not in this type of situation.

In my case, I 'woke up' on my feet, in the middle of a gig, obviously in the middle of cheering on the band. So I knew I'd been 'conscious' even if not self aware in some way.

Now, if I hadn't been on my feet in the middle of a cheer, and instead lying down with someone on top of me....

So these guys who say the girl consented, and these girls who say they woke up in this situation...

Both might be telling the truth from their perspective.

The big problem with rape cases, is if the accused is found not guilty, the accuser becomes guilty by default.

Good points. I think the issue is that the stance should be "if they aren't saying yes then they aren't consenting" rather than "if they aren't saying no them they aren't refusing". To often "she didn't say no" is used as justification.

[eFestivals]

is this any different from any other convicted offender, apart from the fact that he can't avoid discosing the conviction?

Nope, Evans is no different from all other offenders.

Either we're fair and reasonable people who allow ex-offenders to resume normal life after sentence served, or we might as well string them all up on conviction day if they're to be legally given - or mob-rule given - no chance of rehabilitation.

[zahidf]

She got things spot on in the main.

The stupid are those who say what he can't do but won't say what he can do.

I knew at the time she said it that yoiu'd be on her words about how she'd have found him not guilty.

Care to tell me how come she's not allowed to read all of the evidence - wqhich you haven't - and form an opinion from it? As she clearly said, she doesn't see how a person can be deemed legally competent when drunk in one moment, and then legally incompetent ten minutes later.

She also made clear that she respected the verdict, and that she'd not been presented with the evidence in the same manner as the jury which might have led her to a different conclusion.

Her thoughts her different about the verdict than the verdict was. Yoiu thoughts are different about the sentence than the sentence was.

Care to tell me why you're allowed to reject the verdict of the court, while saying she's poisonous for doing the same as you?

Um, i have read the appeal trasnscript. If she read that, she would be less 'confused'.

https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2012ewcacrim2559.pdf

[zahidf]

Ok, simply put, i would support a new Rule for the FA to say that serious crimes ( Murder/rape e.t.c) would prevent a footballer from playing for a sport due to the responsibilities within the community such a role entails.

Once that rule is in, blanket across the board, that should stop all the arguments.

[pink_triangle]

I don't mean it's a PR battle for justice but for the product the club is putting out, both sponsors and fans aren't gonna be happy about it so it's becomes how many of them can you keep which is where the "PR battle" comes in.

Whatever the PR battle is for, its a battle that the rapist will always lose. Very few people are going to expend energy in protecting the rights of a rapist, however the reality is that once that rapist is released society has to do something with them.

You're happy about fans making a decision themselves but are you also happy about sponsors deciding if they want to associated with the player who will be wearing their logo on shirt every week? Which where the problem really kicks in if both the spsonsors and fans have the right not to back him if they want then the club will lose too much for what he brings in.

Im perfectly happy for sponsors to have their say. To me the fans need to know the finanical implications of accepting the player sigining, losing sponsorship is certainly one of them.

There wouldn't be such a media frenzy, hopefully. But they would face the same drawbacks with employers, I'd imagine, regarding declaring convictions. And if they failed to declare on a job application, and t got revealed later, they'd likely be dismissed. But that's the same as it is now, anyway.

It depends on the business, and whether its public reputation is vital (and it's likely to be pretty important in most cases).

There may not be a national media frenzy, but there could easily be a local one. As I have said nobody wants a rapist on their doorstep, but the reality is they must live somewhere and ideally find a way of supporting themselves. Of course the drawbacks with employers are there, but I imagine employers are more likely to be willing to give a rapist a chance to rehabiltate with themselves, if they can keep the conviction quiet from those who they depend on for custom. If the mob scream when ever a rapist is going to be employed, that rapist can never be employed.

[gary1979666]

Good points. I think the issue is that the stance should be "if they aren't saying yes then they aren't consenting" rather than "if they aren't saying no them they aren't refusing". To often "she didn't say no" is used as justification.

I guess the problem with that distinction is if the girl can't remember saying yes, then it's back to he said/she said. It's a really grey area and no really way of getting to the bottom of what really happened in these cases.

[pink_triangle]

is this any different from any other convicted offender, apart from the fact that he can't avoid discosing the conviction?

Isnt the main difference that while the offender has to disclose to the employer, the employer doesnt have to disclose to their clients. In Evans case the clients all know about the conviction.

[zahidf]

I guess the problem with that distinction is if the girl can't remember saying yes, then it's back to he said/she said. It's a really grey area and no really way of getting to the bottom of what really happened in these cases.

It was a trial by jury, and both parties gave evdience, so that generally is it.

Since it's only a 7% conviction rate for rape at the moment, the evdience against Ched must have been very convincing.

[eFestivals]

Um, i have read the appeal trasnscript. If she read that, she would be less 'confused'.

She said she's read the transcripts of both the original trial, as well as the appeal. So she's got greater info than you do on which to form her opinion.

Further, she's used to reading and understanding the legal process as part of her job. which i presume you're not.

But whatever, you don't have to agree with her opinion around the verdict, you only (if you're a reasonable person) have to allow her to hold it. The jury themselves were initially unable to come to a unanimous verdict, it should be noted - so it's not all as clear-cut as you want to present it as.

But her opinion on that particular point of law isn't of much relevance to anything as it stands. What is relevant is having a workable situation for all of society, something that you and the other antis are not able to give.

So in the absence of you having a solution, you have to accept the solution of those who are able to have a joined up view. After all, you have nothing to offer as an alternative.

[eFestivals]

Ok, simply put, i would support a new Rule for the FA to say that serious crimes ( Murder/rape e.t.c) would prevent a footballer from playing for a sport due to the responsibilities within the community such a role entails.

Once that rule is in, blanket across the board, that should stop all the arguments.

What levels of footie is his banned from? All football entirely? Or just some levels?

Why is he unsuitable for some levels but not all levels (if that's your view)?

Why is he unsuitable to play for a pub team but can drink in that pub (if that's your view)?

A ban without detailed justifications for the specifics of the ban is not a ban for sound reasons.

[deadpheasant]

It's the usual story, football player shags pissed up girl and the tabloids get their grubby paws on it. I'm sure there's been tons and tons of cases similar in the past and players have gone on and continued playing pprofessional football. Ched Evans is no different however he was found guilty, went to prison and served his time. Now he is being branded as Rapist and will struggle to get any sort of work for the rest of his life. He did a stupid stupid thing 5 years ago but he's served his time. I agree that the officials need to be more clear about rules allowing or disallowing those with criminal convications from participating.

Clayton Mcdonald got off the hook with a slap on the wrist despite his involvement and got in nowhere near as much sh$t as ched did.

I also feel sorry for the girl by the amount of abuse she got over Twitter. Social media is a harsh environment

[eFestivals]

I guess the problem with that distinction is if the girl can't remember saying yes, then it's back to he said/she said. It's a really grey area and no really way of getting to the bottom of what really happened in these cases.

Yep, ultimately it's a "he said/she said" dispute, where certainty about the verdict can never exist except to the person(s) present at the time who have perfect recall of events.

And, muddying everything of this case is the woman's admission that she does not have that perfect recall for what she's accusing Evans of.

Things around Evans would probably be easier if the case was clear cut, but that's rarely how it is with criminal cases.

Having said all of that, I'm happy to accept jury's verdict as they've heard all the evidence and I haven't, but that doesn't mean I dismiss all possibilities that he might really be innocent. It's impossible for the jury to really know whose version is true, it's only possible for them to know which one to choose to believe.

I'm not supporting anything specific to Evans, I'm supporting the principles of our justice system.

Edited January 9, 2015 by eFestivals

[jump]

Whatever the PR battle is for, its a battle that the rapist will always lose. Very few people are going to expend energy in protecting the rights of a rapist, however the reality is that once that rapist is released society has to do something with them.

Not always. People like Mike Tyson, Woody Allen, CeeLo Green, Roman Polanski, Jimmy Page etc have be known/alleged to have raped and got their careers and popularity back.

Edited January 9, 2015 by jump

[eFestivals]

I agree that the officials need to be more clear about rules allowing or disallowing those with criminal convications from participating.

and yet they are 100% clear.

There is no block on time-served criminals returning to football.

People outside of the game are trying to change that, but without having any firm definition of what changes they want and where those changes might start and end in their scope.

I say to them: come back when you have a fully formed view, that is workable for all of society (a society that includes Evans), for that fully formed view to be considered.

[eFestivals]

Not always. People like Mike Tyson, Woody Allen, CeeLo Green, Roman Polanski, Jimmy Page etc have be known/alleged to have raped and got their careers and popularity back.

and here's betting that plenty of the Evans-antis have been happily enjoying Polanski's films.

[Ted Dansons Wig]

Steve Bruce weighing with his tuppence. Questioning the trial outcome as well?

[zahidf]

Yep, I've already pointed out the logical conflicts within the law's ideas around 'drunk' already in the footie thread.

Ultimately, I'd say that the law is suggesting that women are mentally inferior to men thru the non-logic that is being applied across these two things.

Um, I think you misunderstand the law. Its gender neutral. It applies more to women, because women are raped more. As per that appeal transcript, the prosecution needs to show that the accused should have known that the victim was too drunk to reasonably give consent. If the accused reasonably thought that consent was given ( e,g, she agreed to go back to the hotel room with him or he was massively drunk himself) then it isn’t rape. Given the very low conviction rate and general victim blaming for these sorts of crimes, it doesn’t mean that men are going to go to jail ‘just for having drunken sex’. The bar for conviction is very high.

Of course, without this law, it would just mean a guy could just get a girl drunk and have sex with her without her consent, and there would be no legal recourse. That’s how most date rapes happen. And yes, the victim should try not to get that drunk, but it’s easy to lost track of how much you drink, and the price of being a little careless shouldn’t be being raped.

[zahidf]

then mob rule wins, and no workable solution can exist to that mob?

We might as well hand Ched over to that mob, then, and let them string him up.

Yup, the nasty mob signing a petition and saying how they don’t want to go to watch their club play football with their kids with a unrepentant rapist on the field supporting them. With such nastiness towards him, I’m not surprised he has had to change his identity five times and had to miss Xmas with his family.

( And the police have confirmed that Oldham haven’t reported any threats against them, so I’m not counting that as a thing unless there is evidence for it)

I’ve said what he practically can do. He won’t be on the dole or stacking shelves if he doesn’t sign for a club, he’d be working for his rich father in law. If you mean in general terms, are you saying the rules prohibiting doctors/lawyers/teachers going back to work after a sexual offences conviction is also wrong, given that that’s all they trained for? Are you saying it’s unfair for them to work in on a lower wage or be on the dole in that case, as they are now earning less?

If it was a sexual crime against a minor, would your feelings be the same? Would you call parent’s protesting a mob? Obviously, if it’s the principle rather than this specific case, I assume you’re ok with Rolf Harris being rehired for television once he has served his time, and any complaints or viewer boycott’s because of that towards the broadcaster are just examples of mob rule from an extreme part of society.

Saying footballer’s aren’t role models, don’t influence their fans and have no responsibility to their community is wrong. There sponsorship deals certainly reflect these elements…

Edited January 9, 2015 by zahidf

[zahidf]

and here's betting that plenty of the Evans-antis have been happily enjoying Polanski's films.

Nah, he was shit after he left the US!

And i am consistent in saying Polanski needs to face justice for his crimes. And Tyson shouldn;t have been allowed to go back into boxing.

allegations of course aren't the same as convictions.

[zahidf]

What levels of footie is his banned from? All football entirely? Or just some levels?

Why is he unsuitable for some levels but not all levels (if that's your view)?

Why is he unsuitable to play for a pub team but can drink in that pub (if that's your view)?

A ban without detailed justifications for the specifics of the ban is not a ban for sound reasons.

All levels which the FA is responsible for. If pub football isn’t covered by the FA, then I guess that’s up to the pub! Having a rapist/murder on the pitch brings the game into disrepute, same way having a rapist back as a Doctor brings that profession into disrepute.