Convicts who've served their time.

Laois6556

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

For the 3rd or 4th time now, what should he do instead, collect £50 a week on the dole till he dies?

He can work picking up rubbish on the streets, on his own. Will he have a problem with that? Well he shouldn't have raped that girl then.

B0jangles

GarIT wrote: »

What?

I think your attitude "As far as I'm concerned no matter what the laws say if you haven't been told no it's not rape." to be horrifying to say the least.

What about someone who is unconscious or practically so?
What about someone who is too frightened to say no?
What about someone who is so shocked at what is happening to them that they cannot get the words out?

All the onus is on the victim, none on the perpetrator; they can do whatever they like as long as the magic word "NO" has not been uttered, eh?

Laois6556

GarIT wrote: »

What?

You have to be trolling.

Dempsey

Laois6556 wrote: »

He can work picking up rubbish on the streets, on his own. Will he have a problem with that? Well he shouldn't have raped that girl then.

Seems you have a problem with people using their skillset after a conviction.

Dozen Wicked Words

Dempsey wrote: »

Seems you have a problem with people using their skillset after a conviction.

People in the public eye who have been convicted or even accused of certain crimes will struggle to get work in their trade of choice. Wont be seeing any of the yewtree guilty anytime soon, Gary glitter struggling to get work as musician I'd imagine, as will Ian watkins. Haven't seen much of Michael Barrymore and he wasn't even convicted.

Guy:Incognito

Laois6556 wrote: »

He can work picking up rubbish on the streets, on his own. Will he have a problem with that? Well he shouldn't have raped that girl then.

So he can work, but only in a job you say he can?

Laois6556

Dempsey wrote: »

Seems you have a problem with people using their skillset after a conviction.

No, I have a problem with rapists going back to a high profile job only a few years after they committed their assault.

Laois6556

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So he can work, but only in a job you say he can?

Well first of all, the punishment was far too lenient so if it was up to me this wouldn't be up for discussion right now. Secondly, yes he should be doing a cummunity service job. Why are you defending a rapist?

_Brian

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I see the rags are making a big deal out of Rape convict Ched Evans (26) being released from prison and trying to repursue his career as a pro footballer, there's a bunch of social media groups out there putting pressure on Sheffield United not to take him back.

There used to be a saying that you're square with the house once you do your time, obviously the circumstances of the crime influences people's opinion but I believe that he should allowed to continue his career.

But he's still a rapist.
Being locked up for X ammount of time doesn't exponge his past.

GarIT

B0jangles wrote: »

I think your attitude "As far as I'm concerned no matter what the laws say if you haven't been told no it's not rape." to be horrifying to say the least.

What about someone who is unconscious or practically so?
What about someone who is too frightened to say no?
What about someone who is so shocked at what is happening to them that they cannot get the words out?

All the onus is on the victim, none on the perpetrator; they can do whatever they like as long as the magic word "NO" has not been uttered, eh?

If someone is unconscious that's a different story. If someone is too frightened to say anything how would the other person know they are doing anything wrong, if they were threatened or anything that is also a different story.

It doesn't have to be the word no but is somebody shows no sign of objecting to what you are doing, they cant later claim that they didn't want it. Unless they were in a state where they couldn't consent. It is not possible to get so drunk you cannot give consent.

From the judge in the case

The second matter was a direction to the jury that if they found (contrary to the evidence given by the expert called for the applicant) that the complainant had no memory of events in the bedroom, that did not mean that she did not consent.

The only witnesses say she consented, and the porter in the hotel said she had sounded into it, I don't see a problem with what happened.

Dempsey

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

People in the public eye who have been convicted or even accused of certain crimes will struggle to get work in their trade of choice. Wont be seeing any of the yewtree guilty anytime soon, Gary glitter struggling to get work as musician I'd imagine, as will Ian watkins. Haven't seen much of Michael Barrymore and he wasn't even convicted.

Thats nothing to do with the point I made

Laois6556 wrote: »

No, I have a problem with rapists going back to a high profile job only a few years after they committed their assault.

He's served his conviction yet he should be punished again because of your jealousy about the money he can make from his skills? Thats very trivial.

Laois6556

Dempsey wrote: »

He's served his conviction yet he should be punished again because of your jealousy about the money he can make from his skills? Thats very trivial.

Is rape very trivial? I don't want him to go back to his high profile job because he's a rapist, not because of the money. I'll ask you aswell, why are you defending a rapist?

GarIT

Laois6556 wrote: »

Is rape very trivial? I don't want him to go back to his high profile job because he's a rapist, not because of the money. I'll ask you aswell, why are you defending a rapist?

Rape has become a very broad spectrum ranging from some of the most minor (if at all) crimes to some of the absolute worst.

B0jangles

GarIT wrote: »

If someone is unconscious that's a different story. If someone is too frightened to say anything how would the other person know they are doing anything wrong, if they were threatened or anything that is also a different story.

It doesn't have to be the word no but is somebody shows no sign of objecting to what you are doing, they cant later claim that they didn't want it. Unless they were in a state where they couldn't consent. It is not possible to get so drunk you cannot give consent.

From the judge in the case

The only witnesses say she consented, and the porter in the hotel said she had sounded into it, I don't see a problem with what happened.

Are you serious?

Do you seriously, genuinely believe that you could be happily having sex with a person who is frozen with fear and just NOT NOTICE that they're didn't seem to be that into what was happening?

Do you seriously believe that it is impossible to be so drunk that you cannot realistically consent due to extreme cognitive impairment?

People around here say that rape culture is not real, that it does not exist at all or at least, not in Ireland.

This right here is a part of what is meant by rape culture.

One eyed Jack

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I see the rags are making a big deal out of Rape convict Ched Evans (26) being released from prison and trying to repursue his career as a pro footballer, there's a bunch of social media groups out there putting pressure on Sheffield United not to take him back.

There used to be a saying that you're square with the house once you do your time, obviously the circumstances of the crime influences people's opinion but I believe that he should allowed to continue his career.

It's very difficult to comment on individual cases like this, but I certainly wouldn't employ someone who had been convicted of raping someone. I wouldn't particularly care that they'd 'served their time'. I'm hardly so desperate for people with a particular set of skills that I couldn't find someone who hasn't been convicted of rape.

You're right though, the nature and circumstances of the crime do influence people's opinions, but I would take no heed of the gutter style reporting in tabloid rags or these 'online petitions' either.

I just think rape is one of those violations of another person where it can be understandable why society would show no forgiveness to the perpetrator, nor should they in my opinion.

Dozen Wicked Words

Dempsey wrote: »

Thats nothing to do with the point I made.

I thought you're point was he should be allowed to work in the job he had before his prison sentence? In the same way convicted djs, musicians and presenters should?

Laois6556

GarIT wrote: »

Rape has become a very broad spectrum ranging from some of the most minor (if at all) crimes to some of the absolute worst.

No it hasn't.

Guy:Incognito

Laois6556 wrote: »

Why are you defending a rapist?

What he was convicted for is irrelevant. He was convicted of a crime, served the sentence, minus remission, in the standard manner and is released. He's now free to do as he pleases. He has a skillset and hes using that to provide himself with a wage.

His job and his conviction are not linked and hes not prevented from doing the former by the latter. Famous or not, footballer or plumber, the law is the same and hes now free to pursue his choice of career with any company that chooses to hire him. If your a Sheffield Utd fan your free to protest by not buying merchandise or tickets, other than that its not really your business.


If you've an issue with the laws in the UK, petition to have them changed, but don't go on some moral crusade because its a footballer.

Guy:Incognito

Laois6556 wrote: »

No it hasn't.

2 drunk people falling in to bed together and one deciding after that they don't remember it is a long way from a violent rape and shouldn't be in the same bracket.

CaptainInsano

A lot of information here for some posters who haven't seem to have done much research into this.

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

Guy:Incognito

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's very difficult to comment on individual cases like this, but I certainly wouldn't employ someone who had been convicted of raping someone. I wouldn't particularly care that they'd 'served their time'. .

And that's your choice, but by the same token, the next guy on the list can make the choice to hire them if they want.

Dozen Wicked Words

CaptainInsano wrote: »

A lot of information here for some posters who haven't seem to have done much research into this.

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

Similar to something posted on this very thread, nor just similar in fact, but the very same link.

B0jangles

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What he was convicted for is irrelevant. He was convicted of a crime, served the sentence, minus remission, in the standard manner and is released. He's now free to do as he pleases. He has a skillset and hes using that to provide himself with a wage.

His job and his conviction are not linked and hes not prevented from doing the former by the latter. Famous or not, footballer or plumber, the law is the same and hes now free to pursue his choice of career with any company that chooses to hire him. If your a Sheffield Utd fan your free to protest by not buying merchandise or tickets, other than that its not really your business.


If you've an issue with the laws in the UK, petition to have them changed, but don't go on some moral crusade because its a footballer.

It absolutely isn't. If he had been convicted of driving a car with an expired tax disc, no-one would care and he'd be welcomed back by everyone. If he had been convicted of raping and murdering an 8 year old, he'd probably have to change his name and leave the country.

Would you be ok with a child molester who is a highly qualified paediatric surgeon going back to their old job; after all they've finished their sentence and it'd be a waste not to let them use their skills?

GarIT

B0jangles wrote: »

Are you serious?

Do you seriously, genuinely believe that you could be happily having sex with a person who is frozen with fear and just NOT NOTICE that they're didn't seem to be that into what was happening?

Do you seriously believe that it is impossible to be so drunk that you cannot realistically consent due to extreme cognitive impairment?

People around here say that rape culture is not real, that it does not exist at all or at least, not in Ireland.

This right here is a part of what is meant by rape culture.

As you kindly highlighted "has no signs of objection" yes I am serious. If someone was frozen from fear that would be a noticeable sign.

Yes that's what I believe, if you are able to say yes you are able to give consent. How is another drunk person supposed to judge whether or not you are too drunk to consent. And what about people who want to have drunk sex, should they stop having drunk sex with people they meet on nights out just in case somebody someday decides they regret what they chose to do the night before.

Guy:Incognito

B0jangles wrote: »

Would you be ok with a child molester who is a highly qualified paediatric surgeon going back to their old job; after all they've finished their sentence and it'd be a waste not to let them use their skills?

They'd presumably be excluded from working with children. I really didn't think I'd have to include all the basic common sense exceptions tbh. We're all assuming we're talking amongst adults here, no. Some level of implied cop on has to be included.


In this case, his conviction isn't an excluding factor from his job (legally speaking).

GarIT

Laois6556 wrote: »

No it hasn't.

Having sex with a drunk person that said yes at the time and a teenager having sex with someone a month or two younger than them will never be serious crimes to me.

B0jangles

GarIT wrote: »

As you kindly highlighted "has no signs of objection" yes I am serious. If someone was frozen from fear that would be a noticeable sign.

Yes that's what I believe, if you are able to say yes you are able to give consent. How is another drunk person supposed to judge whether or not you are too drunk to consent. And what about people who want to have drunk sex, should they stop having drunk sex with people they meet on nights out just in case somebody someday decides they regret what they chose to do the night before.

But according to you if they haven't actually said "no" then it's not rape.

Right?

Dozen Wicked Words

His conviction is getting reviewed, it will be interesting to see if it is overturned.

Guy:Incognito

B0jangles wrote: »

But according to you if they haven't actually said "no" then it's not rape.

Right?

What if the man is too drunk to remember aswell?

CaptainInsano

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

Similar to something posted on this very thread, nor just similar in fact, but the very same link.

Whoops. Apologies, had a look but somehow missed it.
Thanks for the overwhelming sarcasm though, I'll never make a simple mistake again.

GarIT

B0jangles wrote: »

But according to you if they haven't actually said "no" then it's not rape.

Right?

No I never said that, you are choosing to be ignorant here. I said if they have not objected.

Laois6556

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What he was convicted for is irrelevant. He was convicted of a crime, served the sentence, minus remission, in the standard manner and is released. He's now free to do as he pleases. He has a skillset and hes using that to provide himself with a wage.

His job and his conviction are not linked and hes not prevented from doing the former by the latter. Famous or not, footballer or plumber, the law is the same and hes now free to pursue his choice of career with any company that chooses to hire him. If your a Sheffield Utd fan your free to protest by not buying merchandise or tickets, other than that its not really your business.


If you've an issue with the laws in the UK, petition to have them changed, but don't go on some moral crusade because its a footballer.

It's not because he's a soccer player, I would think the punishment was far too lenient if he was in any other form of employment or unemployed.

It's not right that he gets to live life as normal only a few years after he raped his victim. Don't you agree with that?

The law in Britain and here doesn't reflect what society wants, ofcourse we should be campaigning to change it. Otherwise we continue with what we have now and what we see in this thread, people see some rapes as not really rape at all.

tritium

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

His conviction is getting reviewed, it will be interesting to see if it is overturned.

If it is overturned, and the outcome would be by no means certain either way, would people then be OK with him going back to his well paid job?

B0jangles

GarIT wrote: »

No I never said that, you are choosing to be ignorant here. I said if they have not objected.

GarIT wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned no matter what the laws say if you haven't been told no (before the event) it's not rape.

Really?

Dempsey

Laois6556 wrote: »

Is rape very trivial? I don't want him to go back to his high profile job because he's a rapist, not because of the money. I'll ask you aswell, why are you defending a rapist?

You are fixated on what job offers he could have. It seems to kill you that he could be earning alot of money.

I'm not defending him, I'm just pointing out that he's served his conviction, a conviction given to him by a jury of his peers. Why should he now receive a another trial by media/mob rule? Because his quality of life could now be better than yours? Trivial stuff

Why wait until the Ched Evans case to get off the fence about the British Justice System handing out lenient sentences?

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

I thought you're point was he should be allowed to work in the job he had before his prison sentence? In the same way convicted djs, musicians and presenters should?

My point was that Laois6556 is more concerned about what he does after he served his sentence than anything else

oceanman

Laois6556 wrote: »

Well first of all, the punishment was far too lenient so if it was up to me this wouldn't be up for discussion right now. Secondly, yes he should be doing a cummunity service job. Why are you defending a rapist?

and that's why the administration of justice is never left up to people like you....thank god

Gelatomela

B0jangles wrote: »

But according to you if they haven't actually said "no" then it's not rape.

Right?

Can you quote where he is said it's not rape if they haven't actually said no?

B0jangles

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What if the man is too drunk to remember aswell?

Then they'd have to go on other evidence - physical, CCTV etc.

Laois6556

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

2 drunk people falling in to bed together and one deciding after that they don't remember it is a long way from a violent rape and shouldn't be in the same bracket.

What do you mean "deciding after that they don't remember"? Your angle is clear here now.

One eyed Jack

GarIT wrote: »

If someone is unconscious that's a different story. If someone is too frightened to say anything how would the other person know they are doing anything wrong, if they were threatened or anything that is also a different story.

It doesn't have to be the word no but is somebody shows no sign of objecting to what you are doing, they cant later claim that they didn't want it. Unless they were in a state where they couldn't consent. It is not possible to get so drunk you cannot give consent.

From the judge in the case

The only witnesses say she consented, and the porter in the hotel said she had sounded into it, I don't see a problem with what happened.

Well that isn't skin crawling at all. It's as dumb as any idiot that comes out with asinine comments like 'I don't care what the law says, if someone doesn't say no, it's not rape', or 'how is someone expected to know if someone is afraid if they don't say so?'. I often think it's because these people know they're wrong, that they'll play the dumb as fcuk card and pretend they couldn't possibly know any better.

The fact they state that they don't care what the law says, means they actually DO know better, but they just don't care about anyone else but themselves.

B0jangles

Gelatomela wrote: »

Can you quote where he is said it's not rape if they haven't actually said no.

GarIT wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned no matter what the laws say if you haven't been told no (before the event) it's not rape.

Third time for the hard of reading.

Guy:Incognito

Laois6556 wrote: »

It's not because he's a soccer player, I would think the punishment was far too lenient if he was in any other form of employment or unemployed.

It's not right that he gets to live life as normal only a few years after he raped his victim. Don't you agree with that?

The law in Britain and here doesn't reflect what society wants, ofcourse we should be campaigning to change it. Otherwise we continue with what we have now and what we see in this thread, people see some rapes as not really rape at all.

How is it not? Its being singled out because he's a footballer. Your commenting because its a high profile case with a footballer. Otherwise, there's no shortage of similar cases involving non famous people that could be discussed.

suicide_circus

Surely he will have been rehabilitated in prison?

Guy:Incognito

Laois6556 wrote: »

What do you mean "deciding after that they don't remember"? Your angle is clear here now.

If 2 drunk people have sex. Then the following morning the woman says "what happened last night, did we sleep together"? Should the man be convicted of rape? Why? Why can a woman be too drunk to consent or remember but a man cant?

Even going on the implications your taking, do you think its beyond the realms of possibility that certain women could be embarrassed/vindictive/hateful enough to decide to get a man done for rape after sleeping with him consensually? Cos theres plenty of cases of false rape claims. Theres one going through the courst here now is there not?

Gelatomela

B0jangles wrote: »

Third time for the hard of reading.

thank you for the quote.

errlloyd

Before I talk about Ched Evans specifically - lets just talk about the idea of "serving time".

Because our legal system has a margin for error, we compensate by giving people significantly lower sentences than what they deserve. People who come out of jail haven't served their time, victims or victims family get very little solace from the justice system. Realistically anyone who thinks 2 and a half years for rape is okay needs to get checked - that is why the victim and rights groups will rightfully be pissed off not only that he got out after just 2.5 years, but that his sins are somehow forgotten and he's now a superstar again adored by many, while she is probably still suffering.

Secondly there is a difference between rape and other crimes. The act of rape is ****ing terrible, as crime goes it's pretty much as bad a thing to do to someone as murder. What makes rape much worse though is it hardly ever gets reported, and and it's incredibly difficult to prove. Victims of rape are shamed, blamed and denied. Courts are crap at convicting for rape, that is just a fact. Often the evidence is going to be a ****, that is why with rape more than anything we have to trust the outcome and trust the appeals process. Because every time someone writes something like "she was drunk, how could she possible remember", "It was her fault for being drunk" or "she was dressed that way" - it makes the actual victims, of this terrible crime, less likely to come forward.

Finally to the specifics of the case. From what I can tell, him and a friend were in a bar. An incredibly drunk girl stumbled past them. They took her to a hotel room. Then both of them admit to having sex with her - but claim she consented. If you were in a bar and your mate started pulling a girl who basically couldn't stand up to a hotel room, would you think that was okay? Even worse, if two of your mates started doing it would you think it was okay? How many of you can recall a night where a sober girl you knew consented to have sex with two lads, in the same room, while two other lads in the room tried to film it? These are not things consenting people do...

She woke up in all sorts of horror. The kind of horror no person should ever wake up in, I don't doubt for a second her story and I have a problem with people who do. Because when you defend him you indirectly and unintentionally (I am sure) attack many victims of rape.

Guy:Incognito

B0jangles wrote: »

Then they'd have to go on other evidence - physical, CCTV etc.

CCTV evidence leading right to a bedroom door wouldn't prove that someone consented to sex once on the bed anymore than it would prove the person wasn't raped.

No one would be denying sex happened in the drunk people case, so the physical evidence will point to sex having occurred, that's not proving anything. Rape and consensual sex could both show no signs of forced entry.

GarIT

B0jangles wrote: »

Third time for the hard of reading.

I probably could have phrased it better as I explained just after.

Laois6556

Dempsey wrote: »

You are fixated on what job offers he could have. It seems to kill you that he could be earning alot of money.

I'm not defending him, I'm just pointing out that he's served his conviction, a conviction given to him by a jury of his peers. Why should he now receive a another trial by media/mob rule? Because his quality of life could now be better than yours? Trivial stuff

Why wait until the Ched Evans case to get off the fence about the British Justice System handing out lenient sentences?






My point was that Laois6556 is more concerned about what he does after he served his sentence than anything else

I've told you, I'm concerned that he can get back to living life as normal only a few after raping a woman. It's not the job or what kind of money he can earn, it's because he's a rapist. Try not to lie in future.

rob316

When it comes to something as sensitive as rape absolutely no football club should sign him so he can continue to live a millionaire lifestyle.
He had his chance that should be that.