UKC

Ched Evans, convicted rapist is back to play with the team! Appalling. What sort of brainless idiots are running the team? Time for the sponsors to show some decency and pull their support.

In reply to Co1in H:

Go back and read the news report again.

In reply to Bellie:

Ignoring completely the question of whether or not he should be allowed back, it seems to me the easiest way to get rid of him would be to let him train, then quickly pronounce him unfit. Gets around any 'human rights' issues about refusing to employ someone purely on the basis of a spent conviction.

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:

Why do they need to get rid of him... he isn't employed by them. David Beckham once trained at Arsenal, but he was never employed by them. Training with a club is by the grace of the club, but seems fair enough seen as though they actually hold the player's registration. Whether or not he should end up signing for them is a different matter, but not out of the question given the statements made by the club.

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:

I can help you with the second part of that, he is on licence. I believe the club terminated his contract when he was convicted. It isn't against his human rights, not to be re-employed.

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:

His conviction isn't "spent", he's still serving his sentence, just not in prison

In reply to Co1in H:

I think he should be able to play again.. plenty of ex-cons have graced the pitch..

Fair enough letting him train. We have horrific re-offending rates of people who have done time.. getting them back into society, working, earning a wage is a huge factor in someone not re-offending.

In reply to Bellie: OK, train with, at the request of the PFA.
However the point still remains. He has "done his time" but the man is still a rapist.

In reply to IainRUK:

Yes. Including a drink driver that killed young kids.
I agree with this, other than he shouldn't be able to earn a footballers wage whilst still serving a sentence.
Also, he's not a burglar or thief, and the likelihood of reoffending at his crime is unlikely to be changed by being allowed to play football and earn a wage in this way?
Sometimes when you make a mistake you have to live with the consequences?

In reply to Skol:


I'm not entirely convinced that McCormick should be playing either - but bringing him up does smack of two wrongs making a right.
To really equate offences we need to see McCormick pleading not guilty, getting out of prison demonstrating no remorse, zero empathy for his victim (s) and starting a campaign to claim it wasn't his fault, and the other driver was to blame.




Absolutely. The consequence of rape being that you need to do a hell of a lot more to convince people that you even vaguely appreciate the consequences of your actions, before you are able to resume your role as a role model and representative of your community on a football pitch. And starting off with a bit of victim blaming isn't really the way to go about that.

In reply to off-duty:


It was Hughes I was thinking of. Several seasons post sentence receiving lower league pay, but still probably in excess of £2000 per week!

In reply to Skol:

I think he's lived with the consequences..

For me he's not in a position of trust.. Like a teacher, someone working with vulnerable people, he's served the sentence, been released to finish the sentence outside and needs to work. It's up to the clubs now.

Philly eagles rehired their star quarter back after he served time for dog fighting, have him a $100 million + contract I think.. That was poor. But I'd not be against him being offered a short term pay as you play deal to see how he is and behaves.

In reply to off-duty:


Yes, even conceding some of the mitigating factors already taken account of by the court, I completely agree.

The entitled society does indeed extend beyond rich bankers and Tory MP's.

In reply to Skyfall:


I think you'll find the ones in jail for expenses fraud are mostly Labour ex-MPs.

In reply to IainRUK:



Meet many Sheffield United fans ?

Joking aside, it's the fact that footballers are public figures who influence impressionable minds that is the key, and that puts in a different category to lots of other professions. The prospect of 20,000 people cheering on an unrepentant rapist is utterly abhorrent.

Sheffield United are testing the waters - I hope their fans stand up and make their opposition clear

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:


His contract expired whilst he was in prison. They have consciously chosen to re-employ him.

I hear the calls for those saying that he has done his time. But we can all choose our destiny. He made his own bed.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Oi

I am in absolute opposition to Utd taking Evans back, my feelings have been made abundantly clear in the past so I won't repeat them.
I've made a stand on a Sheff Utd forum, and it's met with mixed comments. A few in support of my stance, but the majority are supportive of Evans and welcome his return. This saddens me greatly. Oh yeah, I've been threatened as well, but this is the internet and I'm afraid par for the course.

In reply to Tony the Blade:

Bladesmad forum or S24SU forum?

The former I'm guessing, as there's some cock-ends on that messageboard. S24SU tends to be a little more civil.

UTB

In reply to ByEek:

He hasn't been re-employed by them.

In reply to Bellie:

Agreed. And similarly they are under no obligation to have him train with them.

In reply to Axel Smeets:
Bladesmad - I stupidly went on there after many years absence, what a mistake.

Yeah, I quite like S24SU and follow through Twitter as well. Seems more informed and balanced.

I'm fed up with all this now, Utd have once again brought us into the headlines for the wrong reasons.

Still... UTB haha

In reply to Co1in H: I believe the PFA have asked them to let him train there.

It is a very difficult situation. I am quite in favour of rehabilitation and second chances, but he is unrepentant, and I struggle to think of another convicted and unrepentant rapist working in entertainment (as that's what it is)

In reply to Tony the Blade:

Aye, S24SU's Twitter feed is great when United are playing away.

I'm with you on this. I wish the whole thing (including Evans) would just go away. We're constantly in the news for the wrong reasons. Battle of Bramall Lane, Tevez saga, Ched Evans. Even Cliff Richards' recent accuser alleged that the events took place at Bramall Lane at a Billy Graham conference in 1988!

In reply to Co1in H:
If a club sat down to work out what they could do to generate the worst possible publicity for themselves they'd struggle to come up with this scenario.
The Blades must be out of their tiny minds!
I wonder what Nigel Coughs dad would have said, sadly we'll never know.

In reply to wbo:



Mike Tyson?

Somewhat topical given Charlie Webster's cooing over him before resigning from Sheff Utd.

In reply to Co1in H:

He should be at the bottom of a canal with his balls cut off if you ask me.

In reply to wbo:



Should he?

It is possible it's a miscarriage of justice..it does happen.

I'm surprised he got parole if he didn't admit guilt as we talked about earlier it's the old prisoners dilemma.

This case is one of the less straight forwards ones though where it's quite possible he's just wrong and is guilty by law but doesn't think he was.

Interestingly there's a recent case of a guy on a stag do spending $1000s in 30 mins at spearmint rhino and only found out when he found the receipts and appealed but never got money back.. He willingly spent the money but was incapable of giving consent ..

In reply to IainRUK:

Indeed it does, and in the unlikely event that his appeal is successful then his behaviour on that fateful night, whilst undeniably repellent, would not be reason to stop him playing again.

As things stand however, he is a convicted and unrepentant rapist who has served just over half his sentence.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Not to mention the fact that him and his friends seem to be intent on smearing the name of his victim

In reply to Co1in H:

As Iain says miscarriages of justice do occur which is why we have an appeals procedure. Sheffield United allowing him to train with them seems reasonable as they hold his registration papers (I believe).

However the case is not closed until he has gone through as many appeals as he is allowed to / wants to therefore if I were a manager I wouldn't sign him and I don't think he should be playing at any level until he has either cleared his name or accepted his guilt.

In reply to 999thAndy:


Sheffield United don't hold his registration papers. Evans was sentenced in April 2012 and his contract with SUFC expired at the end of June 2012 (it wasn't, as has been reported in certain quarters, 'terminated'. It merely expired). Since then, he has (for obvious reasons) been a free agent and that remains the case at present.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

The naming of her is wrong..

But even appeals can wrongly fail.. We have people executed after countless appeals and then be pardoned.. It's the classic prisoners dilemma where people have died in prison rather than admit to false guilt..

I think he has a right to not repent if he thinks what he did was not rape... I think after his appeal process is finalized we'll them get a proper statement from him, until then I think we'll hear little.

We don't know what happened, it's very possible she was very consensual but he misread how drunk she was.. I can't see how a drunk guy can be fleeced of 1000s in a strip club and it's his fault but now the law takes an opposing stance ..

I think sheff united do still hold some sort of license, registration for him.. And so have first claim on resigning.

In reply to IainRUK:



Is it? Sounds more like you have decided he is innocent, against the decision of the jury who have heard all the evidence, including, first hand, from those involved.


Latest appeal failed on 6th Nov.
He has a right to do whatever he wants. He should expect to be treated accordingly.


We don't exactly know. We DO know that 12 members of the public considered that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, regardless of how much one might try to squirm, misrepresent, victim blame in his defence.

In reply to off-duty:




crikey. I appear to have used the Like button

In reply to IainRUK:
How would you feel if it was a member of your family or friend circle that was his victim?

In reply to off-duty:


The thing I'm not clear about with this case (and I just read a few articles because of this thread), is where the law stands on this, regardless of whether the jury convicted or not.

If you have consensual sex with a girl, is it possible it could be rape if she was deemed too drunk? And is this what he was convicted of?

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

I think she'd have to make a complaint against you to the police first.

In reply to 999thAndy:

I guess without the complaint, nobody would bother to investigate or prosecute, but I wouldn't think the complaint determines whether it's rape or not, does it? Or maybe it does? It's hard to understand this case, but I've been seeing it on the news, and reading this thread and the BBC articles, and I still don't know the basic facts.

In reply to off-duty:


Which year? His Leave to Appeal was denied 6th November 2012, the Criminal Cases Review Commission still to sit.


It's thoroughly unreasonable to expect a man who believes he is innocent of a crime to express remorse for that crime. Even after the appeals process is completed how many of us would accept the result over our own belief that we were innocent?

It's possible, even most likely that Evans is simply in denial about his actions, but it could that he doesn't understand the law, it could be that he has a different view of the law from the jury, whatever his reasons, we can't know beyond supposition but we do know that the Justice system has done it's bit and had it's halfpenny via the applied tariff.

Probationers would admit that there are enormous difficulties with remorse, wary of psychological studies that demonstrate the impact of imprisonment on those who believe they are innocent. It's generally only applicable in cases (especially lifers) who are trying to get out before they have served half their sentence. For shorter sentences there is an automatic right to a parole hearing at 50% served regardless of probation reports. For longer sentences where the minimum is less than half, lifers, indeterminate sentences, etc it's a lot different.

John McVicar made his journalism career out of this very premise, that the justice system should be about administering Justice (tariffs) not rehabilitation or remorse or other Clockwork Orange style treatments that claim to affect prisoners' emotional states.

There are even studies that show that prisoners who show remorse make more likely recidivists, probably because prisoners are simply gaming the system and looking for an easy ride.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

The jury decides if it's rape or not according to the law. The woman would first have to decide she didn't consent (due to being too drunk) and then decide whether or not to go to the police.

In reply to 999thAndy:

Wouldn't it be defined in the law, the jury just determine whether the evidence fits the definition of the offence, and decide whether it's beyond reasonable doubt?

It's hard to believe you'd have a jury decide this, without instructing them as to how the law defines rape.

In reply to


Yes.. The idea was she was too drunk to Vincent.. As I understand the prosecution never argued she didn't consent...

Strangely though they said his mate was not wrong even though she was in a similar situation.

Off duty. He has, he may not win his next appeal, neither did many who have been executed. Others have died in prison rather than admit guilt and be free and then be pardoned... The legal process is not perfect. I think to deny someone that basic right to state their innocence or guilt is wrong, maybe he's deluded, maybe he's just lying, maybe he's telling the truth. No one knows for sure the truth of this case apart from those 3 involved.

In reply to IainRUK:
Whose Vincent? Was there a third party? Who does he play for?

In reply to winhill:


Oops. My bad.


Quite agree. Unfortunately the knock-on effect of continuing to shout about your innocence of this particular crime (combined with a nasty bit of smearing by his campaign, coupled with absolutely no comment in relation to telling his many supporters to "lay off" the victim) is that you aren't demonstrating that you are in anyway a good role model for your community, club or it's fans.


I agree, sentence is served, pending the remainder on licence.




A separate debate about the role of prison in rehabilitation/punishment etc perhaps?

To be honest - I don't expect a huge mea culpa from Evans, nor some sort of false remorse, some degree of acceptance of the severity of what has occurred would be a decent start. The problem is that in this particular case, Evans behaviour in protesting his innocence has been worse than clumsy - a determined effort to have the trial "re-tried" on social media, by releasing footage from the case, persistence in focussing on the harm to "his" family and ignoring the victim, and a total lack of (as I mentioned earlier) any call on those supporting him to back off the victim in this case - who has done nothing wrong.

In reply to off-duty:

you keep banging on about this... you know damn well he can't talk like that about the case until the legal process is finished...

In reply to IainRUK:


Ah yes, the legal process. That's why he can't ask his fans to stop harassing the victim. Or why he thought it necessary to release the footage from the trial.

If he didn't feel it appropriate to comment on the case, then perhaps it would have been best if he didn't...err... comment on the case.

In reply to IainRUK:

Come on Iain, you also know damn well that he has gone far beyond reasonable in defending himself. The way he hasn't come out and suggested that outing the claimant is wrong is , well wrong.

In reply to off-duty:
Youve twisted that as you do...

I don't think he has commented on the case. He's said very little but maintains his innocence.. unfortunately we have a legal system in which mistakes are made, sometimes deliberately so..

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I've said many many times how naming her was wrong, she also blew her own cover though with her comments on social media.

Its still wrong but I;m not sure he is behind that and yeah he should make a statement to leave the girl alone.

In reply to off-duty:





No I haven't.. I just don't have much faith in this conviction. I don't know either way. He may be did know she was too drunk, maybe she wasn't..

I just can't see how the judge could say she was too drunk to consent to one and not the other. You say you explained that, I don't agree with your interpretation and neither did JCM last time this was discussed.

In reply to toad:


I don't think he did blame the victim, that wasn't allowed because as I understood the prosecution never said she did or did not consent, they made sure nothing of her past could be used so all he did was give his version of events, which was actually corroborated by the hotel security..

Saying she consented isn't blaming her, nor that she appeared to be enjoying it..

In reply to IainRUK:



He has made a front page, video statement of his innocence, carried on almost all major media.
He also is running a website - that he acknowledge is his, where they are pretty much trying to retry the case on the internet.

And all through this he has done precisely nothing to assist the victim in this case, who is being persecuted, directly or indirectly due to his high profile campaign.

And who - I repeat again - has done nothing wrong.

In reply to Skol:


I don't know.. I'm not sure without speaking to the specific person involved and knowing them how I would react.

How would you feel if your son was the guy convicted.. Forget the threesome and the other aspects of the case, the filing etc.. Three young people are drinking, they have consensual group sex, the next day a rape case is brought against the two guys? I think alcohol is involved in many sexual events.. its why its probably the most commonly used drug in the world because it removes inhibitions.. dancing like idiots.. sleeping with people you probably wouldn't sober...

I've met random girls on a night out and had consensual sex, often we've both been drunk, I've woken up and thought 'shit that was a mistake'.. I bet most people have.

In reply to off-duty:

I repeat again... we aren't in a court room speaking in front of an audience... jesus christ!

In reply to IainRUK:


Did she? Or are you looking at a few unchallenged hearsay allegations that are being thrown around by some supporters about some pre-trial comments she may or may not have made.

And she doesn't have a "cover" she is a protected and vulnerable victim of rape.


Well, I agree with the last part of that sentence.

In reply to off-duty:

"And who - I repeat again - has done nothing wrong."

Actually that's not true... We don't know.. She had cocaine and cannabis in her system..

She says she wouldn't have taken it but we don't know.

In reply to off-duty:



Thats a new level of samantics.. even for you.. you know damn well what I meant..

In reply to IainRUK:


No, in the case of Ched Evans we are of the front page of the media, advised by numerous expensive barristers.

And in the case of his victim we are moving at least twice around the country now, vilified on social media.

And - since you refer to a court room ,why not look at Evan's website - sod the court room and due process "Judge for yourself".

In reply to IainRUK:


What did you mean - "It's her own fault she got named" ?

You do realise that she's not getting moved around the country just because it's all a bit of a laugh?

In reply to off-duty:



No I didn't.. I thought this was a f*cking joke..

In reply to off-duty:

You do know Sky News also outed her name?

The twitter was pretty widely accepted as being her account.

In reply to IainRUK:



Fair enough. She had consumed some cannabis and coke - not yet, I believe, excuses for rape.

And it was brought up in the trial.

In reply to IainRUK:



Oh yes. 4 tweets with no context, one of which refers to "winning big" in the 10 months prior to the trial.
That seems reason enough to out her....... ?

How much has she sued Evans for ?

In reply to off-duty:

How did I say it did.... No one knows when these drugs entered her system, even how, nor how much she'd drunk and how drunk that would make her.. there's just a huge amount of unknowns in this case.

Its quite possible she had just taken coke, its possible she had her drink spiked.



I'm just not convinced by the argument that things you do under the influence of drugs you aren't responsible for.. like if you crash a car.. it was your decision to get behind that wheel.. this was possibly her decision to sleep with these guys.. We also don't know how drunk the others involved were..

For me it depends on how much cohersion was involved, drink spiking, how much they knew about her level of her drunkenness before it happened.

Likewise there's a case here when're a guy spent £7500 on dances.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2828774/Stag-party-guest-accuses-Sp...

In reply to off-duty:

Presumably that could easily be authenticated..

If someone made up the twitter account purely to out her..

In reply to off-duty:



Could you just remind me for how long the Birmingham Six were 'unrepentent convicted murderers'. Sixteen years was it? And how many appeals were rejected before someone finally discovered the forensic was worthless and the 'confessions' the result of beatings?

Sean Hodgson served 27 years in jail before it was discovered the jury got it wrong because DNA evidence proved another man was the killer.

Stephen Downing, jailed as a 17-year-old , also served 27 years in prison, again on the strength of another very dodgy confession, for a murder he did not commit

Stefan Kiszko served 16 years after being wrongly convicted by a jury. DNA evidence later proved another man was the killer.

If someone says 'I did it and I don't give a sh!t' then I think they will be treated in a certain way. A person who continues to profess their innocence I think must have a right to do so and the jury seen for what it is, 12 people doing their best but far from infallible.

In reply to IainRUK:





The good thing is, you don't have to be convinced, and it doesn't depend on you.

The people that have to be convinced, and the people on whom it does depend were the 12 people in the jury.

And regardless of how much you might want to retry this on the internet, based on your ideas and thoughts about what might or might not have been involved, or what people may or may not have known - luckily you are spared that ordeal, by two teams of well paid barristers who actually get to try the real evidence.




You keep bring this up, as if somehow signing a credit card slip is the equivalent of being raped. Oddly with this case you completely believe the victim - who hasn't even won at civil court.

In reply to off-duty:

You've gone to a new low.. there is no way at all you f*ckwit that I am saying that.. You have been using this argument consistently. It really is a disgusting tactic. Keep on the matter and don't try to accuse someone with a differing view of belittling rape.

And re your first point.. no and Jurors can and are wrong. Even when a great deal of money is spent.

So it is quite possible that he is innocent and so he is fully within his right to assert his innocence.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Not sure that comparing Evans with some huge miscarriages of justice (with quite clear reasons for those miscarriages) is a particularly equal comparison. Why not compare him with some of the many people who have been quite correctly convicted of rape.


I wouldn't claim it is infallible, but the consequence of Evans behaviour, then and perhaps as importantly now, is that he is repeatedly and persistently demonstrating how unsuitable it would be to put him back on a pedestal as a representative of his club.

In reply to IainRUK:


Sorry, you aren't belittling rape. Just this rape.



Slightly different from previous - making no comment until the case is finished.
I have no issue with him claiming to be innocent. I can even see that it is feasible, just about, that he could claim innocence and continue to play football - though I am not convinced that would be a particularly good outcome.

Unfortunately the appalling manner with which he is claiming innocence with a good smattering of victim blaming, public retrial on the internet, and absolutely zero concern for the victim at the centre of this, is undermining any chance he might have had.

In reply to off-duty:

I was challenging your suggestion that since he had been convicted by a jury and lost an appeal he should be repentent. As all those cases I listed show, juries and even appeal judges make mistakes. I'm not saying they have in this case. I am merely saying that a convicted person should be entitled to continue to protest their innocence. In all those cases the conviction was for murder which, vile as rape is, must be accepted as an even more serious crime.

In reply to off-duty:

He's not - and never has been - a 'representative of a club'. He's a player; he stands or falls by how well he puts balls in in the back of the net, or prevents that. I never get this representative business, how full do you think the stadiums round the world would be if the home team was team of peerless saints who couldn't actually play football, American football, basketball or whatever? People don't fork out £50 to see moral arbiters, they pay to see football.

I think your support of the rule of law and due process does you credit, but being outside your profession, and having had some experience of jury service my suspicion is that the verdict was as much a moral judgement, an expression of disgust at some pretty horrible behaviour and a chance to have a go at a pro footballer as it was an expression of justice.

FWIW I think that maybe rape would be a very good place to start exploring alternatives to our adversarial system.

In reply to off-duty:

OK lets keep this about the case and not personal attacks about condoning rape..

I'm not belittling 'this' rape.. if it happened as said its rape.. but I do have doubts.

You yourself have doubted the other guys innocence I think.. Which is understandable.. drunken consent is not consent.. OK all clear... apart from when it is.. so they basically say.. invite someone back for a coffee and lets jump on.. Just on the basis of how long you chatted for.. we don't know when or how she took the coke.. as JCM said its quite likely guy 2 knew more.. I'm sorry but I do think this was judged on them being footballers and the history involved.. maybe they were guilty I don't know.. but I'm not convinced anyone in this case knows.. apart from 3 people.

In reply to IainRUK:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11226209/Ched-Evans-Sorry-but-...

In reply to IainRUK:

Or calling people "f*ckwits"

In reply to IainRUK:

I really don't know where you are going with this, or persisting. You've just posted an article which, like Ched's website, completely omits the evidence that probably damned him. It's far from objective, something which doesn't normally bother me in the media..... but on this topic I think they have a responsibility to get it right.

In reply to Doghouse:


I tried but then he went lower again..

In reply to Mike Stretford:


What evidence?

OD is so insistent the law is right yet he says McDonald? Was right to be acquitted.. But why? She was drunk too drunk to consent? So just because a girl goes back she wants sex...

The judgements make no sense..

In reply to IainRUK:


Hotel porter decribing her as extremely drunk, Mcdonald leaving the room and asking the staff to look out for her as she was sick (this was while Evans was in the room).


The jury found there was reasonable doubt in McDonalds case. The could have meant reasonable doubt that he though she consented.


https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

read the whole thing, I think it does make sense.

In reply to Mike Stretford:
so how did McDonald get off...
Her consent doesn't matter she was drunk..

In reply to IainRUK: It is answered in the link.

I don't want to get into a niggly argument on this topic, and I'm surprised you do and I'm surprised you are so confident in your opinions after it was the jury that was at the trial.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Well surely if you accept the rule of law as epitomised by the jury finding then you must also accept that it is unfair/against the sprit of the law for someone in effect to be punished twice for the same crime; once by doing the time and once by succumbing to mob rule and being prevented from earning a living?

In reply to Co1in H:

Representing a football in the Football League is a privileged and influential role; a role that I think is unsuited to be fulfilled by a rapist.

Is Evans a rapist? I have to trust the integrity and robustness of our legal system which found him to be guilty of rape.

However, some of the evidence on this site suggests that the conviction may not stand forever... http://www.chedevans.com

In reply to IainRUK:



What he thinks is irrelevant. A jury of his peers have found him guilty ( for a crime with a historically low conviction rate, no less ). I have no sympathy for him and no time for his apologists.

In reply to Shani:


What, Ched Evans' official website? Seriously?

In reply to planetmarshall:

Strawman. Take a look at the CCTV evidence that is on show there. Then see if this squares with the level of intoxication claimed in https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans .

I am not defending Evans I am simply pointing out that we can see some of the evidence used during the trial and draw our own conclusions from it (as did the jury).

In reply to planetmarshall:

I'm not sure why a low conviction rate is relevant.

Of course it is, anything which happens behind closed doors, just two people involved, no witnesses, one word against another like in the case of many rape cases will be a low conviction rate.. It's wrong but that's the way it is..

Of course it's relevant.. OD so he should be resentment because a jury found him guilty.. As others said many served many years, even been executed and then exonerated so it's not a 100% accurate.

What would you prefer? Unsafe convictions? To make up for the guilty ones who get off..

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


Did you really, and with no sense of irony, just compare Ched Evans to the Birmingham Six?

In reply to Shani:


Yes, precisely, 'some' of the evidence. Cherry picked by Ched Evans' official website.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

I'm not confident.. I don't know. I'm not at all convinced either way.. I think anything could be true.. Maybe they both raped her.. Who knows.. Just those 3, well 2 probably.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


By that logic we'd allow convicted sex offenders to be doctors, teachers etc.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Stopping them being doctors and teachers isn't about punishment.

In reply to IainRUK:


I would prefer people not try to second guess the decision of a jury who have seen *all* the evidence, heard *all* the facts and heard *all* the arguments from both sides.

In reply to planetmarshall:


No. Read it again. I was making no comment at all on Evans. I've not followed the case. I was challenging OD's assertion that because Evans had ben convicted and an appeal failed he should be repenent. I was pointing out that others had been convicted and had multiple appeals rejected only to be eventualy proved innocent. Just to avoid any confusion here I am not suggesting the EVans is innocent either, merely saying that people who genuinely believe they have been wrongly convicted should not be expected to be repenent.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

In my mind the way he has marshalled social media to proclaim his innocence has backfired for him. If he had not started a website and a facebook page but just got on quietly with his appeal he'd have more credibility for me.

The age we live in means that commercial interests are to the fore and his is not an image I'd want spend money associating with right now.

For the avoidance of doubt I must say
1. When his case is resolved one way or the other he should be free to resume playing, but not before.
2. It is possible that he was wrongly convicted, but saying "I did nothing wrong" doesn't make it true, no matter how much you believe it.

In reply to planetmarshall:

You are doing what Od does..

He was just showing how the juries can in good faith get the decision wrong..

I don't think Evans was in anyway set up.. I don't think anyone has suggested that.

It is an incredibly unique case and one which should be discussed especially in schools to highlight the issue of drunk consent..

But accusing anyone who has doubts on the safety of the conviction of belittling rape..

In reply to planetmarshall:
Thanks.. Good use of stars..

In reply to Chris the Tall:


That's not.. It's about can they be trusted in roles with vulnerable people.. As a footballer ched Evans will similarly be banned from coaching youth I'd imagine..

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

The reason may not be about punishment, but the effect could still be the same. A doctor and an accountant people could be found guilty of the same crime and one is punished more severely than the other.

It may not be absolutely fair, but the alternative is worse

In reply to IainRUK:


They can, but isn't it more likely that given that they were in possession of all the facts and found him guilty, whereas we are not, that they got the decision right?

Miscarriages of justice are, thankfully, rare. If Evans appeal is successful, I hope that he can rebuild his life, but until that unlikely event my sympathies are with the victim.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


The effect might be the same, but not the reason, so your logic isn't correct.

In reply to IainRUK:

So if Gary Glitter were to go on tour, you'd be happy as long as his gigs were over 18s only ?

(acknowledging the fact that mentioning GG is equivalent to a Godwin!)

In reply to Chris the Tall:
It's up to the adults.. I wouldn't watch him..

In reply to IainRUK:



Were they still there when you woke up?

In reply to Skol:
Not always no.. Likewise I've snuck out.. I remember once in Uni leaving a block of halls in disgrace and sneaking out of a fire escape setting off a bloody fire alarm... So everyone piles out and I'm sneaking off across the fields half dressed..

Similarly I've woken up with the girl gone and never to hear from her again..

I do think my generation and below especially in the UK and Northern Europe do have to take some responsibility for the amount we drink/take drugs.. There's so much in this case which should have been avoided.

That's not blaming her, I could turn it around and say those who say McDonald was rightly innocent because she signaled intent by going back with him.. Why does that have to mean she wanted sex?. But when we drink so much/take drugs we significantly drop our guard and expose ourselves to dangerous potentially criminal situations including theft and rape... And no I'm not comparing theft with rape..

But I've been out got hammered had my phone stolen.. Of course it's the criminals fault but I was the one who lent it to someone to use in a shit part of Glasgow when I should have known better.. Did I deserve to get robbed? No.. But likewise my actions played a part.. I put myself in situations I shouldn't.

As I said before a uni I coach at organizes talks on responsible dating and covers all these aspects from girls staying safe to drunken consent not being consent.. This is a case which should be used as an example.

Likewise though, even if innocent they brought this on themselves.. This was one of a series of similar incidents around that time and they were fools to consider a threesome with a girl who they knew had been drinking.. Especially considering CE had a missus.. But it's why I've not much sympathy for Mcdonald because they did bring this on themselves.. Soccer players have massively damaged their own reputations over the past decade and only have themselves to Blame and even if innocent on appeal CEs name will be mud for sponsors and rightly so..

In reply to Co1in H:

This is at least the second very long thread on UKC about Ched Evans and I've read them both carefully.

My personal reasons why SU shouldn't sign him (or let him train) are:

1. SU claim he should be treated the same as any other member of the public out on licence. But I think he is being treated far more favourably. If most of us were convicted of rape (or assault, theft, fraud etc) and sentenced to 5 years there would probably be zero chance of applying for our jobs back. We would be deemed guilty of gross misconduct and sacked on conviction. Our action would also be regarded as bringing the organisation or company into disrepute and therefore nullify our prospects of re-employment. Would Rolf Harris seriously expect to get his Animal Rescue job back at BBC when he's released?

2. Ched Evans does not just protest his innocence - he disagrees with the law as it stands. He simply doesn't believe that his actions (sex with a basically unconscious woman) can be regarded as rape. As a man who makes his living out of adhering to a set of rules in a game, this flagrant disregard for the rule of law would seem to militate against him being a reasonable person to have on your football field. Especially if you happen to be the referee.

3. His conviction and sentence will continue to bring SU into disrepute at every single game. There will be on-going protests, loss of sponsors, abuse from the opposing crowd at every match, endless discussions in the media. Why would any organisation would wish to invite such tarnish and toxicity? Why do SU believe that they owe Ched Evans something? They will surely lose financially a result of the publicity. I can't see how it could be a positive. There simply seems to be a misplaced sense of "loyalty" to an ex-employee.

I've tried to steer away from the actual crime discussion (which has been heard by a jury and a decision made) and return to the OP and the actions of Sheffield United.

In reply to Co1in H:
Ennis-Hill now wading in and adding pressure to the No Return camp.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Excellent! Every little helps......

In reply to IainRUK:
I think that you've argued the issue well Iain.
I don't think this case is 'black and white'.
I think that all involved are morally inept.
The situation could happen to a lot of people, but conversely not to those that don't move in those circles.
Wealthy people are both easy game and also equally opportunistic .
Given that his girlfriend has stuck with him, I would like to think he's not guilty.

In reply to Babika:

I don't think that's true.. noone knows.. but it sounds very unlikely that she was basically unconscious.. the only witnesses describe her as various states of drunkeness but also that she was making pleasurable sounds I think was the phrase..

I think its up to the club and the fans.. tbh if I was the chairman I'd poll season ticket holders.. then there's no witch hunt, no anonymous voting, just approach the fans of the club directly and let them have their say...

I don't think SU feel they owe him anything.. I think its just he's a young good player, prolific goal scorer at that level.. anything else is just an excuse.. Similarly Vick at the eagles.. fans soon forget though.

In reply to Babika:


I thought CE claimed she was concious and consensual?

In reply to earlsdonwhu:


And put it far more eloquently than I can.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

So... Is Evans being prevented from resuming his career because he is a convicted rapist or because he is 'not a good role model'? With respect, Ennis-Hill maybe ought to clarify her position before leaping on bandwagons.

Anyone who thinks Evans was guilty of anything worse than the sort of misjudgement that any of us could have made at some point in our lives hasn't read the transcripts or seen the video. It may be that that misjudgement was worth a custodial sentence... maybe not. But the law has done it's worst, the person who has come worst out of this is Evans, let him resume his career and move on.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


On this you are dead wrong.


The one who has come out worst out of this is the victim. You know, the girl who was raped.

In reply to Skol:


Equally I might think that she's deluded and given that, whomsoever you believe, his behaviour was reprehensible, I'd say she has some pretty major self-esteem issues. However, neither my opinion nor yours matters. He was found guilty of rape and while he is entitled to continue with his life, he cannot expect to continue as if nothing has happened while dragging the name of his victim through the mud.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I couldn't disagree with you more

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I sit between you both I think.. we just don't know. Maybe he did know.. maybe it was all arranged..

Maybe she wasn't that drunk and was very willing..

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Interesting article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11226209/Ched-Evans-Sorry-but-...

An excerpt:

…...the Ched Evans story is far more problematic than that of a priapic predator in a dark underpass. I’ve spent two grim days reading about everything the former Welsh international did in a hotel in Rhyl in 2011. I have come to three conclusions. The first is that the verdict of the jury was inconsistent and quite possibly unsafe. The second is that the football pitches of England would be half-empty this Saturday afternoon if you removed every player who has done what Evans did. (And so would many of the clubs and pubs.)
The third conclusion is probably the most troubling. We live in an era where relationships among the young have changed beyond recognition. Casual hook-ups and the exchange of sexual favours are the norm. Even “nice” girls allow themselves to be used like inflatable dolls. (If confident enough, they can use men like playthings in return.) In such a free-for-all, what is meant by “consensual sex” becomes more and more blurred.

In reply to Postmanpat:
That article was was posted by Iain. It ignores the specifics of the case, completely omits the evidence that damned Evans, presents his testimony as fact, and generally attempts to muddy the waters by comparing it to 'casual hookups'. It's pretty shameful.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Oh, sorry, didn't see it before. Surely, if she actually believes what she has written, she is summarising her take on what the evidence shows i.e.. she believes that there is no sound reason not to believe Evan's version since the woman can't remember much at all.
Not having spent three days reviewing the case I don't really have a view.


What I'm not clear on is the exact rationale for denying Evans a career. Is it because:

1) No convicted criminal should be allowed to resume a career?

2) Rape is a special crime so no convicted rapist should be allowed to resume a career?

3) No convicted criminal who continues to claim he is innocent and therefore show contortion should be allowed to resume a career?

4) Because rape is a special crime, no convicted rapist who continues to claim he is innocent and therefore shows no contrition should be allowed to resume a career?

5) Another reason?

In reply to Postmanpat:


I'd say you've got a pretty naive view of journalism but I know that's not true, you're just arguing for the sake of it.


Oh right, sod the jury and appeal judge (who we actually know spent more than 3 days reviewing the case) and trust a journalist whos living depends on writing these opinionated articles.

In reply to IainRUK:



Maybe she wasn't that drunk and was very willing...

???
Cool. Lets charge her with perverting the course of justice and perjury as well. Based on err... the thoughts of people on the internets, who have possibly viewed a video released by Evans, and have had the "advantage" of seeing the defence case spelled out, without actually hearing evidence from the witnesses on whom the defence relied, or any of the prosecution case.

"We" are in a position of relative ignorance. "We" know what the jury decided, having seen and heard all the evidence, "We" also know that the appeal court were pretty dismissive of his appeal (and why).
"We" probably shouldn't start leaping to conclusions about how the verdict is wrong and that "We" should overturn a verdict of guilty beyond reasonable doubt, unless we can produce something so new or original that we can be pretty certain that the defence didn't raise it during the trial, or that the jury couldn't possibly have considered it.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Consensual sex is pretty black and white. No means no. Why is that so hard for some folks to grasp?

In reply to Postmanpat:


I'm not too interested in that aspect really, I just find some of the stuff posted on the case pretty distasteful.

He worked in the entertainment industry, public image goes with the job.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

I certainly don't trust a jury implicitly, the two I have sat on had some of the most prejudiced and ignorant people it's been my misfortune to encounter. When - despite my protests - they insisted on finding one bloke guilty, even the judge couldn't believe it and insisted on giving the lowest possible fine then telling the 'convict' not to bother paying it.

IIRC an Appeal only comments on the legality of the process, it isn't a re-examination of the facts.

It's very difficult to view the hotel video and square the reconcile the images there with the case made by the prosecution.

In reply to ByEek:

Patently it isn't. The problem is that there is no evidence in this case that anyone actually said no.

In reply to Postmanpat:





These are all strawmen. No one is arguing any of these things. Should Evans be able to get on with his life after his conviction? Absolutely. But that does not mean that he gets to continue as if nothing has happened, particularly as he has shown no contrition for his crime ( and, cucially, he appears to believe that *what he was convicted of* was not a crime ).

There are clearly plenty of people who believe that the conviction is unsafe, for reasons known only to them. It doesn't matter what they think. The law is the only thing that matters in the eyes of potential employers, and they are entitled to decide if they think employing a convicted rapist would be good for business.

In reply to Postmanpat:

4)

His proclamation of innocence is the nub of the issue. There seem to be 3 possibilities

1. He is lying now and knows he had sex with a woman who did not consent
or
2. He genuinely believes he's innocent and genuinely believes he was completely within the law to act as he did, even though it was rape - this is the most troubling possibility and one which makes his case so difficult
or
3. He is a victim of a miscarriage of justice

For me his case is not closed, as it looks like he will take it to the highest level of appeal possible. As the case isn't closed, he shouldn't play.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


I provided the caveat for a purpose.

Ehen i say "i dont have a view" please dont act as if i said the opposite. My view, such as it is, is that i dont have the full facts, that even if i did the, the moral snd lrgal complexities are difficult, and that i doubt either the jury or the journalist know either.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

In 2011 ( just cherry picking a year, but it's representative ), there were 148,000 cases received by the Crown Court alone. I don't know how many of went to jury trials, but I'm going to go out on a limb to say it was enough to make your sample of '2' on which you base your opinion of juries utterly insignificant.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Agreed. But PostmanPat seemed to be suggesting that a promiscuous youth had blurred the lines. I wholeheartedly disagree.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The jury did have the full facts, and an expert on the law (the judge) is there to explain the legal complexities to them. They found Evans guilty. Luckily, we do not try people in this country based on the opinions of journalists and the evidence chosen to b highlighted by Ched Evans official website.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yea, you're trying to have your cake and eat it, post this crap while claiming to be objective. There was a clear implication to 'not having spent 3 days'.

In reply to ByEek:


I didnt. I linked to an article that did so..

Ive just remembetd why i stopped posting on her

In reply to Postmanpat:







Rape is a particularly unpleasant crime. A convicted rapist should (and does) have his post conviction freedom curtailed - access to certain jobs, and definitely certain careers.

A side-effect of being a football player is that you represent your club, your community and if you are lucky/good enough, your country. The ,perhaps unfair, side effect of that is that your conduct on and off the pitch has repurcussions far greater than your playing ability on the pitch.

Evans protests his innocence. As is his right.

The, perhaps unfair, side effect of that is that he also demonstrates no remorse. Which means to all intents and purposes he is an unrepentant rapist. Not an ideal role model for club or community, unless, by some miracle his CCRC appeal comes through.

The further factor in this particular incident is that he insists on trying to retry this case through social media - with a website dedicated to this. Social media is an inappropriate place to conduct a criminal trial.

A final factor is that part of the campaign to "prove" his innocence relies on denigrating the behaviour of the victim. The volume of abuse she has received is quite appalling. Evans is in a position to calm that tirade down, or even call for it to stop entirely, which he is not doing.

So i guess the answer is 5) Another reason.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


It would be interesting to see the other CCTV. The witness evidence of the taxi driver and the hotel porter. The evidence of both defendants. The police interviews of both defendants. The video interview of the victim. The evidence of the doctors and experts involved. The cross-examination of all parties.

But then we'd be called the jury and not UKC

In reply to Postmanpat:

This is a far better piece that awful clickbait in the Telegraph (note that the author goes on to blame Scottish nationalism for Judy Murray not be kicked out of Strictly.....)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30022080

A lot of career options are closed to any felon sentenced to 5 years. A lot are still open. It's a difficult balancing act, society needs to be protected from dangerous individuals, but it is also good for society that they be rehabilitated. There is always the danger that the felon could turn back to crime if they can't make a living legally.

In this instance we have someone wishing to resume a career that is extremely highly paid, but also very public. It puts him on a pedestal with 20000 people cheering for him week in week out. That an unrepentant, convicted rapist could receive such an affirmation is a prospect that so many people find abhorrent. It would send a terrible message to rape victims, set a terrible example for impressionable fans.

If he wins his appeal, everything changes, but currently he is guilty.
If he shows remorse, then maybe there's a way back, but probably only after his 5 years is up.

There is a "Fit and Proper" test for chairman in football - not that it does much good - and maybe there ought to be one for players too. It's certainly about time the PFA acknowledged that there are problems with the culture in football, rather than backing it's members through thick and thin.

As things stand Sheffield United are clearly tempted to sign him. Note that he was allowed to continue playing right up to his trial - and they almost got promoted on the back of his goals. The only thing that will stop them is pressure, so well done to Jess Ennis, Charlie Webster, Paul Blomfield and yes, even Nick Clegg for putting there heads above the parapet, risking the abuse from the mob, to say that some things in life are more important than winning football matches.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I'm just going to say one more thing then sign off on this one. The debate is being misrepresented as one between those who think rape is not so bad, he's done his time, let him get on with it, vs those who think it is he most heinous crime imaginable and no sanction is too strong.

Actually, I would tend towards the latter view - there was a case just yesterday where someone instructed her brother to rape someone as 'punishment' - I'd be tempted to lock both up and throw away the key.

The problem with this case is ... perhaps there has been a miscarriage of justice. There have been plenty of those in the past, the system isn't infallible. How would Evans - or anyone - have behaved differently if, in fact, he and his mate's version of events were pretty much true? It doesn't make them saints, or their behaviour not unpleasant (though I've seen plenty of posters here make misogynistic comments that have been equally disgusting); but I'm still tending to the view that the verdict was perhaps more an expression of moral disapproval than an objective conclusion based on the facts.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Its very difficult to tell anything from it. Although I guess you may be an expert in watching timelapse (is that the right word in this case?) security videos and knowing how people would look.
Perhaps they should post the other cctv as well and the witness statements?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Having read his version of events on his website, I have come to the conclusion that he is a sexual predator with an appalling attitude to women. That in itself doesn't make him a rapist, but I don't believe some of his story and clearly neither did the jury.

If there has been a miscarriage of justice, it is not along the lines of the Guildford 4 etc, but rather did he cross a line. The jury were satisfied that he did, not satisfied that his co-accused did. Now it's possible, as JCM has argued, that given the evidence that was presented, and given the correct direction from the judge, that such a verdict is irrational. I don't think it is, but all I'm going on is a desmond in Law and Politics and the arguments I've on the internet. Far more knowledgeable people than me will decide that.

If some people are looking at this case and thinking "there but for the grace of God go I" then a wake-up call is long overdue.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

You're entitled to your view, but you've provided absolutely no evidence to support this beyond your own personal prejudices towards juries. What evidence do you have that *this* jury arrived at their verdict for the reason you state?

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Absolutely.

In reply to ByEek:


Because the prosecution never alluded she said no.. it is quite possible, even likely, she was very consenting.. but that that consent was invalid due to her level of intoxication..

This case is one of the most unblack and white ones imaginable..

All this talk of the jury having all the facts.. just nonsense.. there were very few facts.

In reply to off-duty:






You've done that thing that the police do when its either or...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


She is hardly leaping on a bandwagon, there is a stand in the ground named after her, the reputation of the club also reflects on her. There is a lot more to the objections than his conviction, there are also the manner of his actions post release. You seem strangely blind to this.

In reply to The New NickB:


Yeh, well, the risks of naming things after living people.

Reputations can change on both sides of the equation.

Vanity projects all.

Imagine what the poor old Queen has to cope with.

In reply to planetmarshall:
I think it is all too often anger from sexual predators that this is the case in law and they dont even hear it as a warning alarm. In the hypothetical situation of sex with someone who is drunk where you are much less so and consent wasnt clear before being drunk, the assumption has to be the sex is possibly non consensual. Non consensual sex is rape. You will normally not be prosecuted for such drunken rape but the crime has indeed been committed if the sex was non consensual. I think there are differences in degrees of rape but only in the sense that the most serious cases need to be raised to a higher category to ensure stronger sentances (to me violent sex as a 'weapon' is worse than many murders).... in the meantime the law is what we have. Rapes are estimated to be around 85,000 a year, and sexual assults 400,000. Yet only 15,000 rapes are reported and about a fifth of those prosecuted with the majority (but not a huge one) successful prosecutions. We need as a society to change the attitude of those who think its fair game to get a partner drunk to get sex without clear prior consent and that drunken sexual abuse has consequencies.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/13/prosecuting-rape-polic...

There is so much here on miscarriages of justice. Yes Chad may be innocent. Sure consent is a tricky grey issue at the decision border of beyond reasonable doubt, but why get close to that when some women would consent clearly? He looks like a sexual predator from his own admission, as Chris rightly pointed out. As the sex followed on from the sex with his friend (prosecuted and possibly a rapist but not found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as consent with him was regarded as possible) with a drunken woman he had no chance of establishing prior consent with, I struggle to find any sympathy for his ongoing case. He is most likely guilty or (much less likely in my view) has recklessly put himself in a position where he has been entrapped by a woman seriously regretting her actions. Subsequent to the rape the website is a stupid move and not calling a halt to the attacks from his fans on the victim and in effect tacitly encouraging them is particularly despicable.

Sheffied United should have nothing to do with him and risk serious reputational damage if they do.

I listen to things like if Chad is guilty then half the footballers would be removed from the game and I think to myself so what. I dont want rapists as role models in such an industry. Football is a beautiful game but so much of the behaviour of clubs, players and fans stinks in the areas of racism, sexism, homophobia and general respect.

In reply to IainRUK:

'likely'? How can you possibly have established that, when you have said yourself that there are very few facts to go on?


That's a revealing way to put it. The position of the law is that it was not possible to give consent, or that the defendant could not reasonably believe that consent was given, due to her level of intoxication. Not that consent was in some way 'invalid'.

In reply to planetmarshall:

Because the porter said he was outside listening in and she was making 'pleasurable sounds'.. thats about the only evidence there was on that.

But the issue was if that consent was invalid due to being drunk..

In reply to IainRUK:


So based on that, and that alone, you think you know better than the jury, who saw a lot more evidence than you, and who determined that consent could not have been given?

In reply to Co1in H:

Just as an aside to the main thread I've been looking to see if I can find any of the court transcripts online, to get the facts as presented in court rather than those presented by the 'meeja' I can't find them, is there some sort of 30 year rule?

In reply to IainRUK:



I really don't understand why you persist in trying to "re-try" this case on the internet.
Have you heard the porters evidence in full? Do you know the details of what the morning porter said? Have you seen her video account of what she does and doesn't remember of that night? Did you see her subject to cross-examination regarding her memory loss and its implications regarding consent.
Did you see the crime scene photos of the piss stained bed?
Have you heard the accounts of McDonald and Evans regarding what occurred in the bedroom?

OR are you just taking a second hand account of one witness' evidence and summarising it in a manner favourable to the defence?

In reply to planetmarshall:

when did I say that...

I don't think that disagrees with the jury in any way...

You have such a poor understanding of this case by the way. Your last sentence highlights that. They did not make that conclusion.

It was never argued she did not consent. You seem to be thinking like others that they slept with a woman who was comatose..

In reply to IainRUK:


Well, when you are suggesting Maybe she wasn't that drunk and was very willing... then by implication you are suggesting that she has lied about her account - thus committing perjury etc.

Obviously it doesn't seem to cross your mind that Evans may have been lying about his account, after all he's got no reason to lie has he.....?

In reply to off-duty:

"i" am "not" retrying this case..

See how I use quotation marks to look like a condescending arse....

In reply to off-duty:

No I'm not.. classic police.. it's not either or.. this is why so few report rape cases because they think the police will treat them like you are acting here.. that its either rape or the victim faces perjury... disgusting.

I've said all along Evans may well be lying..

In reply to IainRUK:


The porter also described her as 'extremely drunk', and described McDonald asking him to look out for the woman as she was 'sick'. Like off duty says I find your insistence on re-trial by internet, and this cherry picking of evidence strange and surprising from you.

In reply to IainRUK:
Re porters evidence, I just found this

"While it was taking place the porter went to check what was happening. He waited outside the room for a while and concluded from the noises that he could hear within the room that a couple were having sexual intercourse. No other concerns were raised in his mind."

From here https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans.

The sounds were not described as 'pleasurable' in this summary.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


I'm not retrying it.. it just highlights how much marshall has misunderstood the case..

You don't know when she took the cocaine either, if she did..

In reply to IainRUK:


That's quite amusing. Especially when you repeatedly accuse me of twisting your words...
As you are no doubt fully aware, I have never suggested that it is either/or - however if, as you suggest the victim wasn't that drunk and was very willing... then by implication the account she has given of not remembering anything and not having given consent is a lie. Thence perjury...



Fair enough. I simply hadn't noticed that balance.

In reply to IainRUK:



What were the results of Evans and McDonald's drug tests?

In reply to IainRUK:


My understanding of the case is based on the transcript, which I can read as well as you can. Either the jury determined that consent was not given, or that Evans could not reasonably believe that consent was given. Given that McDonald was acquitted, the latter seems more likely.


Do not presume to know what "I seem to think". You accused off-duty of being condescending, so it would seem reasonable to pay me the same courtesy.

In reply to IainRUK:

There you go again! You obviously didn't read the summary of the appeal I posted yesterday or you wouldn't ask that, yet you keep digging.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


Yes I did..

" The tests also revealed traces of cocaine and cannabis. The evidence was consistent with cocaine and cannabis having been ingested some days earlier."

but then...

"He then addressed the implications and consequences of the evidence that the complainant had been drinking and had possibly taken cocaine. He said:"

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Old Bess has more to worry about than a few buildings, trains, ships etc when it comes to her legacy.

In reply to IainRUK:
Right, 'some days earlier'.

Well I'm glad you have read it but I am amazed you can then carry on with this odd crusade.

There's enough idiots on the internet (I'm not calling you one) defending him, you don't need to join in. His millionaire girlfiend's father has got a private detective on the case and it is being fastracked through the appeals process. Can't you let the legal process run it's course without this speculation?

In reply to Mike Stretford:

I don't think I've defended him.I've said repeatedly he's in this situation because of his actions and he and mcdonald may be much worse than people think.. this could have all been arranged..

yes some days earlier and then they talk of her possibly using cocaine that night.. so it obviously wasn't ruled out.

In reply to Co1in H:

Meanwhile Jess Ennis is predictably getting abuse on twitter for taking a stand (no pun intended)

I'm starting to feel sorry for Blades fans like Tony and Axel. The vast majority don't want Evans back and don't agree with actions of those that support him, but they are all going to get a bad name, and it's only going to get worse as this drags on.

In reply to IainRUK:



This gives the impression, at least to me, that you are defending Evans. It is reasonable to believe that if, as you say, the complainant had been "very consenting", then Evans would have believed that consent was given.

In order to return a guilty verdict, the jury would have needed to be convinced that either consent was definitely not given, or that Evans could not possibly believe that consent was given. If the jury believed that consent *may* have been given, then they were explicitly directed by the judge to find both defendants not-guilty ( Appeal transcript section 22).

There is no reference to consent being "invalid" due to intoxication. Is this something you have come up with yourself, or are you referring to another source?

In reply to planetmarshall:

Just because a Judge explicitly directs, the jury don't have to obey; and, of course, they are not allowed to disclose the reasons for any decision they may make. So what the Judge directed is not evidence in itself of what the jury found.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


No, but as is mentioned in the Appeal transcript, the fact that they found one defendant guilty and no the other seems to suggest that they were not unduly influenced and took the directions seriously. In the absence of any other information, it seems reasonable to give the jury the benefit of the doubt.

In reply to planetmarshall:


Evans and McDonald state she asked and according to their version she led the way so to speak..

In the crime line info

: ".... [the complainant] was in no position to form a capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, and you, when you arrived, must have realised that."

"the judge was satisfied that the complainant lacked the capacity to consent to sexual activity: "

"A complainant consents if, and only if, she has the freedom and capacity to make a choice, and she exercised that choice to agree to sexual intercourse."

He then addressed the implications and consequences of the evidence that the complainant had been drinking and had possibly taken cocaine. He said:

"There are two ways in which drink and/or drugs can affect an individual who is intoxicated. First, it can remove inhibitions. A person may do things when intoxicated which she would not do, or be less likely to do if sober. Secondly, she may consume so much alcohol and/or drugs that it affects her state of awareness. So you need to reach a conclusion upon what was the complainant's state of intoxication, such as you may find it to be. Was she just disinhibited, or had what she had taken removed her capacity to exercise a choice?"

In reply to Chris the Tall:



I don't understand the club don't just put it to the fans.. not an open poll on FB or something as you will get the witch hunt allegations but they will have the emails of all their season ticket holders or subscribers, just email a poll out and gauge fans feeling on this..

In reply to IainRUK:

Sorry, I can't make sense of your last reply. You stated that it was 'likely' that the complainant was 'very consenting', and then posted some quotes from the transcript that suggest that she could not have consented. Are you disagreeing with the judge?

In reply to planetmarshall:
That she consented, the only evidence was C and M's reports and the sounds from the bedroom.. Its been made out that they slept with someone who was basically comatosed, and there's no evidence she was at that level.

No, I'm not. It's the fact that she could have consented but was too drunk for that consent to be valid. Strangely on one account the consent was accepted the other found to have ignored her inability to have the capacity to consent due to the level of drunkeness. As JCM mentioned on a previous thread.. McDonald was the one who spent most time with her so if anyone knew how drunk she was it was him..

In reply to IainRUK:


I can only go by what I read in the transcript. The judge does not assert that she was comatose, but mentions several 'stages of consciousness'. There was plenty of scope for the jury to acquit if they believed that consent *may* have been given. If acted as directed they must have been very sure that it was not, or equally that there was no way Evans could have believed that it was given. I don't think that any accusations of prejudice against footballers or their lifestyles holds up, as if that were the case, then why acquit McDonald?


Here we differ on our interpretation of what the judge says. Intoxication does not invalidate consent ( indeed the Appeal refers to the issue of 'drunken consent is still consent' ), rather he was of the opinion that she was in no fit state to give consent in the first place, valid or otherwise. In any case, as is mentioned in the Appeal transcript, this is only the judge's opinion, and the jury's verdicts were found to be consistent with the direction given to them.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


Which was that she had spent two days (actually, I misremembered), unless she is simply lying, and I haven't, so I can't really have a valid view on the details of the case. That is not pertinent to whether she actually believes what she has written or has simply been given a brief to write something along those lines by her editor.

But,as Rob said, "The debate is being misrepresented as one between those who think rape is not so bad, he's done his time, let him get on with it, vs those who think it is he most heinous crime imaginable and no sanction is too strong." so I'll leave you to it.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Which considering Rob also said, amongst other things,
"It's very difficult to view the hotel video and square the reconcile the images there with the case made by the prosecution."

Does make me wonder about who exactly was doing the misrepresenting.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Quite possibly, she missed a hell of a lot out of the summary of the case and it was very one sided. I would have thought 2 days would have given here a more rounded view.


That doesn't even make sense.

In reply to Co1in H:

It is getting particularly classy now, Jess Ennis-Hill is getting rape threats on Twitter.

In reply to Mike Stretford:




Yes it does. But take it up with Rob if you don't understand it.

In reply to The New NickB:


Wonder if Ched will get round to putting a note up on his website asking his supporters to stop being such muppets.

In reply to dissonance:


Quite.

Although a brief glance at Twitter brought this classic:

"AdamLopez1586: Its disgusting ow jessica ennis is being treated for not being associated wiv a convicted rapist. Shenever asked to b named after a terrace"

No, Adam, I don't suppose she did...

In reply to The New NickB:
After he received criticism for his threat, he replied: “Freedom of speech mate… I’ll say what I want when I want!”

Superb...

I do think this was partly about the culture in football.. had these two not been footballers I'm not sure it would have got to court, but likewise had these two not been footballers it probably wouldn't have happened..

In reply to dissonance:


This again is just idiotic.. presumably his missus's family have something about them to be well off.. they really are handling his public image in a poor way, obviously it's hard to make him look a saint exactly but just simple statements like the above would help..

Having your supporters saying you should rape anyone who speaks out against you really isn't the greatest way to conduct a campaign for innocence...

In reply to andy:




Did Ali G write that? Aiieee

In reply to IainRUK:



What are you suggesting?

In reply to Timmd:

What am I suggesting?

That she was a recreational drug user and may have used drugs that night.

We don't know if she did. The crinoline info i quiet confusing on the matter as it states the drugs were from days ago and then repeatedly mentions potential drug use..

But I elaborate further on another post about my generation's excessive drinking and the risks we take due to the state we get into.. with little memory about how things happen, we massively increase the risk of a crime being committed against us..

As I said there are so much in this case which should be talked through with teenagers to educate about partying, consent, alcohol, safety when out.. In the US we have constant stories from the NFL and use them to educate the kids we coach about domestic violence, rape, initiations, drinking, drugs... unfortunately we have a constant stream of real life examples from the NFL which we talk through to educate the young athletes.

In reply to IainRUK:

Right, I thought you thought it might cast doubt on her account of what happened, or the soundness of Ched Evans being found guilty.

There's definitely something to be said for educating young people about the dangers of becoming too drunk to know what's happening, while emphasising that it's not the victim's fault.

In reply to Postmanpat:

You posted it, you defend it, like that poor article you posted from.

Rob's clumsily worded post bears no relation to the discussion or is it descriptive of this thread. It has nothing to do with our discussion so I've no idea why you posted.

I object to this retrial by internet/print and gross cherry picking of evidence. The plight of entertainers with tarnished public images may worry you, but as far as I'm concerned it goes with the territory so I won't be losing sleep over it.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


You're actually taking part in this aren't you?

In reply to 1poundSOCKS: No, I'm not questioning the verdict using scraps of information, I've consistently implied the original trial seems to have been conducted reasonably. If you consider the whole thread a 'retrial' I disagree.

In reply to Mike Stretford:
So where is the retrial?

And you seem to be saying, anybody who questions the verdict did so on scraps of evidence and should shut up. But you agree with the verdict, and therefore you should be allowed to say so, and I presume you'd extend this to anybody else who agrees with you?

What about other crimes - a killer is playing in the fourth division at the moment. No one seems to mind.

In reply to Co1in H:

Ah, hang on, its all irrelevant
No need for any contract with SU as the millionaire Daddy-in-Law has just offered him a job any time he wants.

Good to see he's being treated just the same as an other ex-con, as SU are at pains to point out.

In reply to Fat Bumbly2: Context? Murder , accident, contrition?

It's not simply the crime

In reply to Mike Stretford:


>
Defend what? Its plain English and perfectly intelligible. Not my (or Rob's) problem if you cant understand it.

In reply to Co1in H:

I can't be arsed to read the whole thread, I gave up after the tedium of skipping through the irrelevant posts questioning the jury's verdict.

I think it boils down to two simple questions:
1. If you were an employer, and someone applied for a job with you, and on their application form they had declared they had served two years for rape, would you employ them?

2. Would you be allowed to cite the conviction as reason for not employing them?

In reply to 1poundSOCKS: No, I'm just suggesting that if people are going to comment, they consider the whole evidence.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Stuff you post, that's how it works. Where is this debate being 'misrepresented' is there another thread talking about this one?

In reply to Fredt:





Fixed (ish)

In reply to Mike Stretford:

OK I'll spell it out. The debate isn't about what should happen to convicted rapists; I don't think anyone disagrees that long custodial sentences are appropriate.

The debate is between those who think that the conviction was safe, which is fair enough, and those who think there is room for doubt; who find Evans' account, while distinctly unpleasant, quite plausible. Police, judges and juries are all human, they are subject to prejudices, media pressure and all the rest, they can and do make mistakes.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



Right, so what you meant by 'the debate is being misrepresented', is 'the debate isn't what I want it to be'. The debate is what it is, see Postmanpat - on 10:06 Fri. He is interested in what should happen to a convicted rapist, as is the OP.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



Fine, but it doesn't seem very objective when you mention one piece of evidence which might support your claim while ignoring several pieces that certainly do not.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


Actually. Although i think this is a poor thread, im generally interested in the definion of rape, the attitude of society to sex, the legal and police treatment of rape, the sentencing for rape and the treatment of convicted rapists and other criminals, the beaviour if footballers and many orher issues raised by this case. If you think this thread should be confined to a mch narrower basis so be it. As i said, i dont think i know enough about the details of this case to have a strong view but i do think discussion of the above issues is important.
I took rob's comment to mean that he felt that the thread, as so often, had become become spoiled by people caricaturing others' positions. I agree with him. In particular, i believe you have immediately mistakenly made assumptions about my views on the basis
Of posting an article which you seem to have assumed i agreed with every word of.
With that as a starting point i didnt and dont think an interesting or illuminating discussion is likely to follow.
I still have no idea why you thought robs comment "made no sense" or how you think it can "defended" if it makes no sense. I assumed you meant "clarified" but it already seemed pretty clear.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


I suppose it depends to some extent on what you're commenting on, but generally I agree that would be best.

In reply to Postmanpat:



It was clear i was criticizing the article that you had linked to (and selectively cut and pasted). I don't think you do agree with every word of it, I think you've done a sloppy cut and paste and then took criticism of the contents of your paste personally.


It would appear you and Rob disagree, see his post above.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

It seems we are all looking at the same reports and arriving at quite differing opinions.

The linked crimeline item (https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans) I hoped would provide greater clarity and faith in the judgement. For me it has done the opposite.

From my reading, the issue is down to whether consent given at the time was reliable, given the amount of alcohol consumed. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that consent wasn't given and appearances that it was.

Essentially, I can get myself pissed and agree to something, giving every impression I am happy with it. Then a day later, be it resulting from a change in heart, the harsh light of day, or outright opportunism, I can withdraw the consent and the other party is now a criminal. At what point are the accused expected to understand that the consent is not reliable (the indications are she was far from comatose)? And I still don't understand how one party was convicted and the other acquitted - perhaps I'm missing something there.

Reliably convicting people in these circumstances seems scary territory to get in to. It certainly seems to stretch the definition of rape to an extreme, and whether that is right or wrong, it is about as far from black and white as you can get.

In reply to David Martin:





Everyone accepts she was drunk, the porter said 'extremely drunk', cctv of the victim falling over, Mcdonald describing her as 'sick'. The jury had to make a call and given the evidence I don't it was unreasonable.Do you think the law should be changed, anything but comatose and consent is valid?


I thought the paragraph dealing with this made sense. It comes down to reasonable belief in consent. The jury may not believe the victim could consent due to intoxation, but they thought it reasonable that Mcdonald did think she was ok to consent.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

I don't know.. comatose is clearly black and white but there's also a long way from amnesia to comatose...

I just can't see how they thought McDonald was OK.. he'd been with her the longest, seen her forget her pizza, stumble.. evans appeared on the scene late on and as JCM pointed out had the least time to address her condition or know how much she had drunk..

I think the crimeline report is pretty poor. The conflicting comments on drugs are also an example of this. One minute it says tests were consistent with drugs being ingested days earlier, others mention repeatedly the possibility of drugs..

In reply to IainRUK:

I thought it was more along the lines of mcgonald had spent a reasonable amount of time with the victim, and therefore there were numerous indications that her consent had been given through actions during the evening, where as evans turned up late in the day, and was barely introduced to her and therefore whatever consent he thought he had, it wasnt reasonable to consider she was able to consent given her state.

A bit like turning up in a highstreet, find a really pissed girl trying to get home, taking her home and taking advantage.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


And millions of people every day give consent and have sex, when drunk, possibly even to the point of being sick.

The expert witness seems to indicate that the amount she drank put her at twice the legal drink drive limit. He indicates, and I would agree, that is a fair way from the amount to render such a degree of memory loss. If consent given at twice the drink drive limit is not actually consent, then I am a rapist as likely are most people I know.

I don't know if the law should be changed or not. All I am saying is that far from what the braying lynch mobs seem to indicate, while Mr Evans may be a vile individual generally, it is far from clear that what happened in the hotel room clearly constitutes rape - at least the commonly held view. Perhaps if a law change is required, we need to have a legal drink-sex limit. At least then we would know where we stand.


But I don't understand why the consent given to McDonald was any different to Evans.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

That could be it. But it still seems strange that she made her complaint against both McDonald AND Evans. So in her mind she gave consent to neither. Yet the jury finds in favour of one but not the other.

In reply to David Martin:


There we go again, a statement base on one piece of evidence, do you wet the bed at twice over the drink drive limit. The jury had to consider everything.


It was their 'reasonable belief in consent' which was different. They must have found it unreasonable that Evans could have made an assessment of her condition (there was little opportunity for him to do so), but reasonable that Mcdonald could (even though the jury disagreed with his assessment).

In reply to Mike Stretford:

It works both ways. Perhaps she regularly wets her bed when pissed? Perhaps one of the chaps pissed in the bed? The fact that she claims to have wet the bed does nothing to imply that consent was meaningful or not. You are assuming this has bearing.


I'm confused now. Isn't the issue one of whether consent was given and that it was considered?

If it is a case of deciding if both men had enough opportunity to rightfully form an opinion on consent, and if the request from the girl that he perform oral sex on her was not sufficient, then surely you can see this case (whether the jury decision is right or wrong) is actually far more complex and open to interpretation than the "black and white" issue you claim it to be? To claim otherwise would show complete ignorance to how males and females, young and old, footballers or upstanding do-gooders, behave when drunk.

In reply to David Martin:

You seemed to have made an assumption of fact there. You obviously weren't there.


I've never stated that, quite the opposite. I'm going to leave this now, i've stated my opinion, it's not something I want to get into a niggly argument about (though I do seem to have failed in that).

In reply to Mike Stretford:

I find it really difficult to see how there's not readonable doubt based on the public facts.

And I think the judge's summing up wasn't clear and probably lead the jury to their verdict.

Balance of probabilities - guilty. Reasonable doubt - probs not.

Still think he shouldnt play football though. Privilege not a right etc.

In reply to David Martin:


Drunken consent is still consent, the issue is whether Evans believed she consented.


The law seems pretty clear really, the problem is the facts are difficult to determine, and that's what we have juries for. If you don't believe that your partner is in a position to consent to sex then it's rape. If you don't think that matters then you've got a problem.

If you take a girl who's collapsed in the street home and have sex with her that's likely rape. If your partner comes home drunk and you have sex then it's more than likely not. If your mate calls you round and you have sex with someone when they're so drunk they don't know what they're doing then you're guilty of rape - and the jury have decided that's what Ched Evans did.


The two situations are different. M meets her, spends some time with her, goes back to a flat with her. E gets a text from his mate, turns up has sex and leaves.


She didn't make the complaint, the CPS did. She didn't even remember Evans was there.

In reply to Donnie:



I am not sure what it is about playing professional football that shows it to be viewed as a privilege ?

There doesn’t seem to be too much of an obligation for role model-like behaviour on the pitch, as an England Captain’s recent near head butting a referee shows ! I wouldn’t have thought that Evans is going to be on a pedestal if he plays again (other than with his own fan club) as this episode will be with him forever.