Sheffield United and Wales footballer Ched Evans found guilty of Rape

niallo27

niallo27 wrote: »

It's easy to say that. Are you saying that there not women out there who would love a few quid off a footballer and don't care how they get it.

That's why you have the judicial system.

Plenty of false claims have resulted in them being thrown out of court and rightly so.

People think when they read a summary in the paper about a case they can decide they know better than any evidence presented in a court case.

I'd bet that the vast majority of rapists never admit to it.

CSF

rarnes1 wrote: »

That's why you have the judicial system.

Plenty of false claims have resulted in them being thrown out of court and rightly so.

People think when they read a summary in the paper about a case they can decide they know better than any evidence presented in a court case.

I'd bet that the vast majority of rapists never admit to it.

I've read the evidence, it is available in detail online. I am not saying he is necessarily innocent, but I think that they probably didn't have enough evidence to prove him to be guilty.

The case largely balanced on the notion of whether the amount of alcohol she had taken would merely remove inhibitions, or remove her ability to consent. Then obviously they had to establish that Ched Evans would have known that she wasn't in a position to consent.

Clayton Donaldson was acquitted because she met him on the street and agreed to go back to the hotel with him, whereas Ched Evans arrived later. I do have a problem with that to be honest. She either had consumed enough alcohol to consent, or she hadn't IMO.

niallo27

rarnes1 wrote: »

That's why you have the judicial system.

Plenty of false claims have resulted in them being thrown out of court and rightly so.

People think when they read a summary in the paper about a case they can decide they know better than any evidence presented in a court case.

I'd bet that the vast majority of rapists never admit to it.

I actually have read a lot about the case. Your right though people just heard the word footballer and rape and automatic think he is guilty. Do some of the facts seem strange to you.

Dots1982

Anyone want to get into how dodgy it was that charges were ever brought against Clayton McDonald in the case. Whatever about Evans, how Mcdonald ever saw the inside of a courtroom on the back of the CCTV which shows her freely going through the hotel reception on her own scares me.

I'm not saying just because you go to a hotel room with someone while caught on CCTV acting like a couple means you automatically are giving consent to have sex with them but jesus if you go to a hotel room freely with someone you need some shred of proof that you didn't give consent or was drugged. I guess the alternative is not to have sex with drunk people or have the other party speak into a camera before the act confirming they consent.

Its strange the amount of people say they can't understand why evans went down for this while McDonald got off. Seems bloody obvious to me that them both going down would be a miscarriage of justice.

EuropeanSon

CSF wrote: »

I've read the evidence, it is available in detail online. I am not saying he is necessarily innocent, but I think that they probably didn't have enough evidence to prove him to be guilty.

The case largely balanced on the notion of whether the amount of alcohol she had taken would merely remove inhibitions, or remove her ability to consent. Then obviously they had to establish that Ched Evans would have known that she wasn't in a position to consent.

Clayton Donaldson was acquitted because she met him on the street and agreed to go back to the hotel with him, whereas Ched Evans arrived later. I do have a problem with that to be honest. She either had consumed enough alcohol to consent, or she hadn't IMO.

And if she hadn't consented to go to the hotel and have sex with Ched Evans, doesn't that make him a rapist? She may have consented to go back with one guy, that doesn't suddenly mean every guy in England now has a right to have sex with her.

If a jury convicted him, then he is a rapist. Anyone who decides to assume otherwise based on him being a sound lad or her being drunk is a pig.

Presumption of innocence only lasts until proven guilty, and he was.

niallo27

EuropeanSon wrote: »

And if she hadn't consented to go to the hotel and have sex with Ched Evans, doesn't that make him a rapist? She may have consented to go back with one guy, that doesn't suddenly mean every guy in England now has a right to have sex with her.

If a jury convicted him, then he is a rapist. Anyone who decides to assume otherwise based on him being a sound lad or her being drunk is a pig.

Presumption of innocence only lasts until proven guilty, and he was.

Tell that to the fella in America that was locked up for 39 years for something he didn't do. It is nothing to do with him being a sound lad, i don't even know him and i doubt anyone here does. What were the deleted twitter and Facebook messages about.

bucketybuck

EuropeanSon wrote: »

And if she hadn't consented to go to the hotel and have sex with Ched Evans, doesn't that make him a rapist? She may have consented to go back with one guy, that doesn't suddenly mean every guy in England now has a right to have sex with her.

But it does beg the question how she was sober enough to consent to the first sex, to have sex, and then suddenly become so utterly wasted that further sex became rape by definition.

CSF

EuropeanSon wrote: »

And if she hadn't consented to go to the hotel and have sex with Ched Evans, doesn't that make him a rapist? She may have consented to go back with one guy, that doesn't suddenly mean every guy in England now has a right to have sex with her.

If a jury convicted him, then he is a rapist. Anyone who decides to assume otherwise based on him being a sound lad or her being drunk is a pig.

Presumption of innocence only lasts until proven guilty, and he was.

But the argument isn't that Ched Evans forced himself on her, that isn't thought to be the case. The argument is that she was too drunk to consent. That may well be true, but IMO if she is too drunk to consent with one person, she is too drunk to consent with anyone.

Nobody is assuming anything based on him being a sound lad, or her being drunk. In fact I'm not assuming anything at all. I have no idea what happened, I wasn't there, I just don't think the evidence was very solid. I've read it in detail so I feel happy to discuss it in a reasoned manner.

symbolic

CSF wrote: »

I've read it in detail so I feel happy to discuss it in a reasoned manner.

Can you link to the court transcripts here? Wouldn't mind reading it myself.

CSF

symbolic wrote: »

Can you link to the court transcripts here? Wouldn't mind reading it myself.

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

Enjoy!!

Saipanne

Expect Wigan to sign him soon.

eyescreamcone

laoch na mona wrote: »

I'll ignore your questions and address that ridiculous statement in bold, going to jail is not enough criminal justice should not serve as a time out. People should be rehabilitated so they no longer pose a threat, he's an adult so he needs to act like one apologise for what he did and learn what consent actually is so he doesn't do something like this again.


is

Absolute crap

Who are you to add extra penalties to a court sentence?

eyescreamcone

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Absolute crap

Who are you to add extra penalties to a court sentence?

No one is adding more penalties.

It's just that few employers will take on people who may harm their business, that's just a commercial and societal reality. Sheffield Utd have weighed up the pros and cons and decided it's not for them. And just like a guy who served time for most crimes, they will find that affects their prospects afterwards.

eyescreamcone

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No one is adding more penalties.

Really?

Because I thought some people are actively canvassing to prevent him working in his chosen profession.

Sounds like they want to penalise him a bit more than his prison sentence to me.

eyescreamcone

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Really?

Because I thought some people are actively canvassing to prevent him working in his chosen profession.

Sounds like they want to penalise him a bit more than his prison sentence to me.

Can't imagine too many want to work with a convicted rapist. They fall into the same sort of pool as peados and I doubt they would be too welcomed into the dressing room by a group of lads who probably have wives /girlfriends and maybe even daughters of their own.

niallo27

rarnes1 wrote: »

Can't imagine too many want to work with a convicted rapist. They fall into the same sort of pool as peados and I doubt they would be too welcomed into the dressing room by a group of lads who probably have wives /girlfriends and maybe even daughters of their own.

Or maybe half of them will realise they probably have done a lot worse themselves just never been brought to court.

eyescreamcone

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Really?

Because I thought some people are actively canvassing to prevent him working in his chosen profession.

Are they? How?

The reaction I've heard is more of a distaste/well I'm withdrawing my support /not in my club reaction - like Jessica Ennis and Paul Heaton - rather than anyone taking positive steps to get him banned from football. And that's fine, you can't compel anyone to like or support a person convicted of anything.

I see his position as being no different to the robber looking for a job afterwards. He's done his time, there is no ban on applying for a job...but a lot of employers will still decline.

niallo27 wrote: »

Or maybe half of them will realise they probably have done a lot worse themselves just never been brought to court.

Half of the dressing rooms have "done a lot worse" than rape?

Serial killing? Keeping people in cellars for decades?

niallo27

Deleted User wrote: »

Are they? How?

The reaction I've heard is more of a distaste/well I'm withdrawing my support /not in my club reaction - like Jessica Ennis and Paul Heaton - rather than anyone taking positive steps to get him banned from football. And that's fine, you can't compel anyone to like or support a person convicted of anything.

I see his position as being no different to the robber looking for a job afterwards. He's done his time, there is no ban on applying for a job...but a lot of employers will still decline.



Half of the dressing rooms have "done a lot worse" than rape?

Serial killing? Keeping people in cellars for decades?

No been drunk and gone off with a bird who was hammered too. What are you being so dramatic.

niallo27

niallo27 wrote: »

No been drunk and gone off with a bird who was hammered too. What are you being so dramatic.

Did you miss the bit where he raped her?

Or do you not find rape that dramatic?

I suspect more than half of dressing rooms have not raped a woman. He has.

niallo27

Deleted User wrote: »

Did you miss the bit where he raped her?

Or do you not find rape that dramatic?

I suspect more than half of dressing rooms have not raped a woman. He has.

Do you not find some of the facts in the case strange. Why not answer a few of the questions people are asking instead of seeing how many times you can use the word rape. I'm not saying the guy is innocent I just think there was very little evidence against him.

niallo27

niallo27 wrote: »

Do you not find some of the facts in the case strange. Why not answer a few of the questions people are asking instead of seeing how many times you can use the word rape. I'm not saying the guy is innocent I just think there was very little evidence against him.

Is calling rape "rape" another thing you find too dramatic? Do you really think it should be labelled "going off with a bird" as you previously called it? I don't.

It is what it is. Rape. I don't think it should be prettified. The jury found him guilty. The request for an appeal was comprehensively dismissed. He is seeking to overturn it but at best it's a long shot. I don't see what your suggestion that I answer questions posed by unspecified people on the www who didn't attend the case adds.

niallo27

Deleted User wrote: »

Is calling rape "rape" another thing you find too dramatic? Do you really think it should be labelled "going off with a bird" as you previously called it? I don't.

It is what it is. Rape. I don't think it should be prettified. The jury found him guilty. The request for an appeal was comprehensively dismissed. He is seeking to overturn it but at best it's a long shot. I don't see what your suggestion that I answer questions posed by unspecified people on the www who didn't attend the case adds.

I just find the case odd. Why did she delete her Twitter and facebook messages. Why didn't the night porter burst into the room while she was being raped.

niallo27

niallo27 wrote: »

I just find the case odd. Why did she delete her Twitter and facebook messages. Why didn't the night porter burst into the room while she was being raped.

Huh?

To be honest, I don't know what the proper way for a rape victim to behave on social media is, or why the failure of a third party to intervene makes it less of a rape.

niallo27

Deleted User wrote: »

Huh?

To be honest, I don't know what the proper way for a rape victim to behave on social media is, or why the failure of a third party to intervene makes it less of a rape.

To say you will benefit financially from it and boast that you will buy presents for your friends is odd behaviour would you not agree.

eyescreamcone

To those who say Evans shouldn't resume playing for SU - can I ask a few questions?

Should he be allowed to play professionally for another club?

Or how should he make a living from here on in?

Dirty Dingus McGee

eyescreamcone wrote: »

To those who say Evans shouldn't resume playing for SU - can I ask a few questions?

Should he be allowed to play professionally for another club?

Or how should he make a living from here on in?

Perhaps he should wait until he clears his name fully before resuming his career.

Why would any club want to employ someone who brings so much bad press towards the club and could result in a loss of supporters and sponsorship.

If I was convicted of rape there is no way in hell I would be taken back by my old employer immediately after my release.

JaMarcusHustle

Very hypocritical of Jessica Ennis to threaten to take her brand away from Sheffield United. Presumably they don't pay her hundred of thousands of pounds the same way Adidas do. Or maybe the line she draws begins at rape, having just conveniently bypassed the deplorable working conditions and 34p wages for those who produce the goods she gets paid 6 figures to wear.

eyescreamcone

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Perhaps he should wait until he clears his name fully before resuming his career.

So if he can't clear his name he should never work again??

He's served his time in prison.
Should he be allowed to work again?

Dirty Dingus McGee

eyescreamcone wrote: »

So if he can't clear his name he should never work again??

He's served his time in prison.
Should he be allowed to work again?

He should be allowed to work again as employers can decide to hire whoever they like regardless of the persons morality but I don't think it would be good for any club to hire a convicted rapist. Although undoubtedly some club will sign him regardless.

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

Did you miss the bit where he raped her?

So did she.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

So did she.

No wonder rapes are under reported when you read stuff like this

bucketybuck

rarnes1 wrote: »

No wonder rapes are under reported when you read stuff like this

While I don't wish to be insensitive neither do I apologise, there are more holes in that conviction than I am comfortable with.

CSF

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

Very hypocritical of Jessica Ennis to threaten to take her brand away from Sheffield United. Presumably they don't pay her hundred of thousands of pounds the same way Adidas do. Or maybe the line she draws begins at rape, having just conveniently bypassed the deplorable working conditions and 34p wages for those who produce the goods she gets paid 6 figures to wear.

That is actually a fantastic point to be fair.

eyescreamcone

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

He should be allowed to work again ...

That's all we need to read.

JaMarcusHustle

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

Very hypocritical of Jessica Ennis to threaten to take her brand away from Sheffield United. Presumably they don't pay her hundred of thousands of pounds the same way Adidas do. Or maybe the line she draws begins at rape, having just conveniently bypassed the deplorable working conditions and 34p wages for those who produce the goods she gets paid 6 figures to wear.

I suspect, on this of all sites, there are many here who wear Adidas boots and gear and thus support that 34p wage system.

It doesn't mean they can't object to rape though.

CSF

Deleted User wrote: »

I suspect, on this of all sites, there are many here who wear Adidas boots and gear and thus support that 34p wage system.

It doesn't mean they can't object to rape though.

This relates entirely to putting your name to something though, a little bit different.

howiya

eyescreamcone wrote: »

To those who say Evans shouldn't resume playing for SU - can I ask a few questions?

Should he be allowed to play professionally for another club?

Or how should he make a living from here on in?

Well Sheffield United are the ones that ultimately decide whether he can play for them and they've done a u-turn on their decision to let him train at the club.

He should be allowed earn a living from here on in but ultimately that is at the discretion of future employers and perhaps he may have to seek employment outside of football.

I think its fairly understandable why clubs won't touch him with a bargepole. Football is a business. The whole episode has brought a lot of negative publicity to Sheffield United. Sponsors were talking about pulling the plug. Patrons resigned, petitions organised etc etc. I'm surprised at how long it took Sheffield United to remove themselves from the situation.

A lot of employers outside the football industry will ask for details of past convictions (if any) when taking a person on. I've had to have a police check done as part of the on boarding process for a new job.

I can't imagine too many employers employing a convicted rapist and I don't see why football should be any different.

Dirty Dingus McGee

CSF wrote: »

This relates entirely to putting your name to something though, a little bit different.

If anything people who buy their products are far more to blame than someone who endorses it.

If customers stop buying adidas because of their dodgy work practices then they might have to change their ways if Jessica Ennis stops endorsing adidas it will make zero difference to them

CSF

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

If anything people who buy their products are far more to blame than someone who endorses it.

If customers stop buying adidas because of their dodgy work practices then they might have to change their ways if Jessica Ennis stops endorsing adidas it will make zero difference to them

Yeah, but you're not making a like for like comparison there. You're talking about customers as a collective, but just Jessica Ennis as a person.

If one customer stops buying adidas, it makes zero difference to them, if sports people stop endorsing adidas because of their dodgy work practices then they might have to change their ways.

See how the reverse applies just as accurately?

CSF

CSF wrote: »

Yeah, but you're not making a like for like comparison there. You're talking about customers as a collective, but just Jessica Ennis as a person.

If one customer stops buying adidas, it makes zero difference to them, if sports people stop endorsing adidas because of their dodgy work practices then they might have to change their ways.

See how the reverse applies just as accurately?

But neither buying their products nor taking their money disqualifies anyone from objecting to rape and the prospect of a rapist being employed by a football club. He can of course apply, and she can of course object, and saying "but what about the sweat shops" doesn't mean she can't.

CSF

Deleted User wrote: »

But neither buying their products nor taking their money disqualifies anyone from objecting to rape and the prospect of a rapist being employed by a football club. He can of course apply, and she can of course object, and saying "but what about the sweat shops" doesn't mean she can't.

Nobody said this. Everyone should object to rape. Everyone.

The point is that some people are in more of a position to be making public media statements of a moral nature than others.

eyescreamcone

CSF wrote: »

Nobody said this. Everyone should object to rape. Everyone.

The point is that some people are in more of a position to be making public media statements of a moral nature than others.

I don't think anyone does not think rape is bad.
Should we continue to punish former convicts after they have served their time? This is what is now happening to Evans.
Or should we shun all former convicts to a level where they struggle to eek out an existence?

Then we complain when former convicts work as self employed taxi drivers?

CSF

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I don't think anyone does not think rape is bad.
Should we continue to punish former convicts after they have served their time? This is what is now happening to Evans.
Or should we shun all former convicts to a level where they struggle to eek out an existence?

Then we complain when former convicts work as self employed taxi drivers?

I think I've been clear enough as to my stance. Do I think Ched Evans should operate off a clean slate? No.

Do I think he will and should find somewhere to play a bit below where his natural ability would dictate? Yes.

eyescreamcone

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Should we continue to punish former convicts after they have served their time? This is what is now happening to Evans.

It happens to all former convicts. It always has. It always will. They find it difficult to get jobs. Hence your standard robber or murderer or paedophile or rapist doesn't stroll back into the workplace. That's just the way it is. It is not unique to Evans.

Agent Coulson

Oldham agree to sign him.

It was only a matter of time really although I did think it would be a club outside of England.

His representatives have since been in talks with the club and the Professional Footballers' Association.
More than 60,000 people have signed a petition calling for Oldham not to sign the Wales international, while sponsors, campaigners and politicians voiced opposition to the move.
On Wednesday the Bishop of Manchester, David Walker, added to those calls, telling BBC Radio Manchester Evans was not a suitable role model.
A counter-petition calling for Evans to be given a second chance has attracted more than 2,000 signatures, while some sponsors have also said he should be given a second chance.

One sponsor, Verlin Rainwater Solutions, has now ended its association with the club as a result.
Director Craig Verling said the "imminent signing" of Evans, 26, had prompted the decision.

A second sponsor, ZenOffice, said it will also end its association with the club if Evans signs. Managing director Les Kerr said Oldham's "current path" did not "espouse" the company's values of "family and community".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30681333

Skylinehead

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Oldham agree to sign him.

It was only a matter of time really although I did think it would be a club outside of England.






http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30681333

He's not allowed to play outside of England (or possibly the whole UK) while he's out on licence, that Malta thing was shot down instantly.

A Primal Nut

Is the only evidence against Evans that:

1) They had sex.
2) She says she doesn't remember anything

If so, it sets a dangerous precident; what happened to reasonable doubt?

CSF

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Is the only evidence against Evans that:

1) They had sex.
2) She says she doesn't remember anything

If so, it sets a dangerous precident; what happened to reasonable doubt?

They know she had consumed 2 and a half times the legal driving limit.

Dozen Wicked Words

Mecca bingo have said they'll end their sponsorship if Evans is a confirmed signing.

Think Sports Direct are happy enough though, and they are main sponsor and presumably most important.

bucketybuck

CSF wrote: »

They know she had consumed 2 and a half times the legal driving limit.

So why wasn't the first guy she slept with prosecuted?