Ched Evans signing for.....

Status
Not open for further replies.
lordy said:
everyone in prison is innocent marra, haven't you seen the Shawshank Redemption??



would you let your 12 year old daughter (or son for that matter) gan to a Garry Glitter concert or buy them one of his records for Christmas?



its a matter of opinions, I wouldn't want him anywhere near my working mens club let alone my football club, theres plenty that think like me too and thats why he's gonna struggle to get a contract and rightly so IMO. Would you get your job back after a stretch for rape? I know I wouldn't. By all means let him seek employment but let him cut his cloth accordingly as 99.9% of us on here would have to.
Click to expand...

Aye that's what I said
 


KST said:
He hasn't apologised because he's still appealing/insisting innocence. That would be contradicting, yes?

By the way I'm not saying he's innocent or guilty (tbh I haven't really read into this enough to pass opinion).
Click to expand...

Yes and that he's still insisting innocence shows that he doesn't understand what 'rape' and 'consent' actually are.

But we've been through all this.

joecphillips said:
it depends on what has happened throughout the night i would believe so if you asked someone and they say no then you get them shitfaced that would be illegal however if you both were then it is more likely that it would be said t was reasonable belief.
Click to expand...

The other guy didn't go down because of the situation. He met her on a night out, chatted her up, they ate together and she agreed to go back to the hotel with him etc. Even if she was too drunk to give consent to the former there are other things in his favour.

Evans however just got a text, turned up, had sex with her, and left her.
 
lordy said:
I'd suggest he is in a position of trust of sorts, coaching kids, book signings, autographs etc, not to mention the young lasses throwing themselves at him every weekend. And as for my other questions?
Click to expand...

He isn't in a position of trust.

There is no suggestion he will coach kids (and he didn't rape a child anyway). There is no need for him to sign autographs, and signing autographs - if people to choose to ask for one - hardly puts him in a position of trust anyway - he isn't going to rape someone at the Hartlepool United Megastore as they queue for their selfies. As to young lasses throwing themselves at him, do you really think that would be more likely to happen because he plays for Hartlepool United?

As to your other questions - I have seen the Shawshank Redemption, I don't believe that everyone imprisoned is innocent, I don't know if Ched Evans is guilty or not, I leave that to the courts to decide (including his possible appeal). But if you take the view that he is guilty because the courts said so (which is fair enough IMO), personally I also think you need to leave sentencing to the courts as well - and he has served his time.

As for Gary Glitter, I wouldn't give a toss if a child of mine wanted to buy a Gary Glitter record, except on the grounds of bad taste. As it happens, my older son likes Michael Jackson and downloads quite a bit of his music, even though he regularly paid off people who accused him of child abuse. I wouldn't allow a child to spend time with Gary Glitter, but even disregarding the fact that the crimes are totally different - Ched Evans didn't rape a child - I don't think Hartlepool are asking permission to grant Ched Evans access to young supporters. They are looking at employing him to play football.

I wouldn't get my job back if convicted of rape, because of the nature of the work I do, which involves DBS checks. So it's not comparing like with like.

I still think that what you articulated is what a lot of people feel - that the issue is money, and their real issue isn't him working again, but the money he would make by doing so. I don't think jealousy over the money he may earn (whatever that is at Hartlepool these days) is in any way relevant.

HellsBells said:
I personally don't care how much he earns. It's the "role model to kids" that I'm not comfortable with.

Personally I think a lot of this is to do with the view of the rape as "not really a proper rape" if you'll excuse the expression. I'd like to see if people would still welcome him back if he was a "classic rapist" as people believe them to be - chasing a woman down the street and forcing her against her will.

Rape is rape, but I think some people still think she was asking for it by being drunk, so people don't really see him as a nasty rapist.
Click to expand...


I agree with a lot of that, actually - I'm not challenging his conviction, as I didn't sit through the trial and hear the evidence, and I do agree that there is a nasty undercurrent that this wasn't a 'proper' rape, and I don't agree with that at all. Someone I know well was in a similar position - on a night out on the pull, drinks spiked, not in control of their actions, had sex without being in a position to give consent - and I've seen the damage that has caused the girl involved, in the 10 / 15 years since it happened.

That's not my argument: my argument is that he was convicted, has served his time, that sentencing should be a matter for the courts, and that he has a right to rehabilitation in the right circumstances - and I think that playing football can be part of that.

I do think money comes into it though - maybe not yourself, but a lot of people seem to have the view that he has the right to rehabilitation and to work, but not football because of the pay involved. I really don't think that jealousy about what footballers earn is relevant.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have no issue at all about the money.
It's two things about this that worry me.

The focus on the 'rights' of the convicted unrepentant rapist Ched Evans, rather than on the victim who has been outed and chased out of town by his toerag mates.

The massive support for the little sh8t. Hundreds of SUFC fans chanting 'He'll shag who he wants' at matches last season, and badly informed bloke after badly informed bloke talking about miscarriages of justice and rehabilitation in terms of how unfair life is being to Ched Evans.
These guys don't have a clue about criminal justice, but boy do they have an agenda. Why?

PS it'll be interesting to see what Jeff Stelling says. Isn't he the Pool's most famous supporter? Has he commented yet?
 
andymcnish said:
I have no issue at all about the money.
It's two things about this that worry me.

The focus on the 'rights' of the convicted unrepentant rapist Ched Evans, rather than on the victim who has been outed and chased out of town by his toerag mates.

The massive support for the little sh8t. Hundreds of SUFC fans chanting 'He'll shag who he wants' at matches last season, and badly informed bloke after badly informed bloke talking about miscarriages of justice and rehabilitation in terms of how unfair life is being to Ched Evans.
These guys don't have a clue about criminal justice, but boy do they have an agenda. Why?
Click to expand...

Loads of our fans were singing that within the last 2 years, mind, for one of our players.
 
Andy_Roker1983 said:
But it can't be 1 rule for some and 1 for another. Lee Hughes and that McCormack both played again after being convicted. You could say what if fans had lost someone to a drunk driver is it fair on them.
Click to expand...
It's not just other clubs that fingers are pointed at. What about Jamie Lawrence, a convicted bank robber. We were happy to take him straight from prison.
 
All those admitted they had done wrong and said sorry, though.
That is the basic first step towards rehabilitation, and one that Evans refuses to take.
 
HellsBells said:
It sounds like you have a problem with the definition of consent under the law, rather than a miscarriage of justice.

If she can't remember, then she must have been to drunk to consent. The other evidence backed up that she was drunk. That's pretty much it as far as I can see.

Also the comments she made on Twitter are absolutely nothing to do with her consenting or not and are absolutely non admissible in court. Although Mr Evans website seems to think they're evidence.
Click to expand...

The prosecution's argument was that she must have been incapacitated, either through drinking or through a spiked drink. But this is a court of law, so where is the evidence that she was drunk, and where is the evidence that she was incapacitated to the point where the accused could see that she obviously could not give consent? His entire conviction relies on hearsay and supposition. The prosecution's main witness, the victim, claims she has no recollection of the night, and the conviction relies entirely on a guess as to whether between the point she entered the hotel and when she apparently gave consent, she either became vastly more drunk or vastly more drugged. At that stage the judge should have thrown the case out because he was now leaving justice to an emotive assessment by the jury, without any evidence to guide them.

The problem with your argument is that it ignores the principles of justice. You have clearly taken the accuser's account as the gospel truth, but the needs to consider that she might not be telling the truth. "If she can't remember, then she must have been too drunk to consent..." Was she drunk? Could she not remember? Is there scientific evidence that if you drink to the point you can not remember then you must have been extremely drunk? Where is the evidence that she was drunk at all? If so, is there evidence that she was drunk to the point where she was unable to consent? The video evidence showed that she could walk unaided and balance with little difficulty. It is entirely her word. Her toxicology was not done until the next evening and strongly suggested she was either a high-level cocaine user, or that she had taken cocaine very recently, which she denied in the face of the evidence to the contrary. It was too late at that point to gauge her alcohol consumption at the time of the alleged assault. The conviction relies on a huge amount of trust in the woman that she is actually telling the truth, and that is why this is going to be found to be a miscarriage of justice. There is simply not the evidence there to make the decision to put someone away.

And is there a precedent and a principle in law that if someone appears to be in a state to make decisions, but are actually very drunk, that is grounds to accuse those who might have sex with her of committing rape? It could be argued by the defence that the woman was not as drunk as she had claimed, and that is why she subsequently claimed that her drink must have been spiked. It could also be argued that there is a degree of personal responsibility to be taken, and that it is not secret that when you drinking inhibitions are lowered and it is more likely that a person would consent to things they would not normally consent to while sober. That does not mean they have been in a state where they are not able to consent, alcohol has just made them more likely to consent. If a person is drunk to the point they are unconscious or close to unconciousness and unable to be aware of what is happening then there is a clear cut argument for that being rape. But this case was nothing like that.

Everything about this case is ambiguous. I believe if the inadmissible evidence had been allowed the victim would have been utterly discredited and the case would have been thrown out.
 
It seems to me that he'd be better off waiting for his appeal to have the conviction quashed and then if successful try and get back to professional football. If he wins his case it will still be very difficult but you will get more clubs prepared to take him on. Frankly if he doesn't win his appeal he's got very little chance of getting back to the professional game in the UK.

JumpingAnaconda said:
I believe if the inadmissible evidence had been allowed the victim would have been utterly discredited and the case would have been thrown out.
Click to expand...

There's a reason inadmissable evidence is inadmissable.
 
Last edited:
JumpingAnaconda said:
The prosecution's argument was that she must have been incapacitated, either through drinking or through a spiked drink. But this is a court of law, so where is the evidence that she was drunk, and where is the evidence that she was incapacitated to the point where the accused could see that she obviously could not give consent? His entire conviction relies on hearsay and supposition. The prosecution's main witness, the victim, claims she has no recollection of the night, and the conviction relies entirely on a guess as to whether between the point she entered the hotel and when she apparently gave consent, she either became vastly more drunk or vastly more drugged. At that stage the judge should have thrown the case out because he was now leaving justice to an emotive assessment by the jury, without any evidence to guide them.

The problem with your argument is that it ignores the principles of justice. You have clearly taken the accuser's account as the gospel truth, but the needs to consider that she might not be telling the truth. "If she can't remember, then she must have been too drunk to consent..." Was she drunk? Could she not remember? Is there scientific evidence that if you drink to the point you can not remember then you must have been extremely drunk? Where is the evidence that she was drunk at all? If so, is there evidence that she was drunk to the point where she was unable to consent? The video evidence showed that she could walk unaided and balance with little difficulty. It is entirely her word. Her toxicology was not done until the next evening and strongly suggested she was either a high-level cocaine user, or that she had taken cocaine very recently, which she denied in the face of the evidence to the contrary. It was too late at that point to gauge her alcohol consumption at the time of the alleged assault. The conviction relies on a huge amount of trust in the woman that she is actually telling the truth, and that is why this is going to be found to be a miscarriage of justice. There is simply not the evidence there to make the decision to put someone away.

And is there a precedent and a principle in law that if someone appears to be in a state to make decisions, but are actually very drunk, that is grounds to accuse those who might have sex with her of committing rape? It could be argued by the defence that the woman was not as drunk as she had claimed, and that is why she subsequently claimed that her drink must have been spiked. It could also be argued that there is a degree of personal responsibility to be taken, and that it is not secret that when you drinking inhibitions are lowered and it is more likely that a person would consent to things they would not normally consent to while sober. That does not mean they have been in a state where they are not able to consent, alcohol has just made them more likely to consent. If a person is drunk to the point they are unconscious or close to unconciousness and unable to be aware of what is happening then there is a clear cut argument for that being rape. But this case was nothing like that.

Everything about this case is ambiguous. I believe if the inadmissible evidence had been allowed the victim would have been utterly discredited and the case would have been thrown out.
Click to expand...
I've not taken her word for it, I've taken the judge and jury's word for it. I didn't hear the evidence so I have to trust them.

Iirc the evidence was also given from the hotel clerk who testified she was drunk? And also Evans himself who said to the clerk that her should look after her because she was very sick. So it's not just her word against his, as I can see it.

Also if this inadmissible evidence is the fact that she tweeted some stuff later, then that is entirely inadmissible as it has absolutely nothing to do with the evening in question.
 
Just wondering how many of the people who are dead against ched evans returning to football are still Mike Tysons fans (if you were in the first place) or shouted their disapproving voice when he returned Boxing.

Myself i think he should be allowed to return to fotball, not because i think hes paid his dues or rehabilitation of offenders etc but because i love Mike Tyson, I wanted him to return to boxing, I watched him when he did return, I'd love to meet the bloke.

If i can think that about Tyson then how hypocritical would i be if i was dead against Ched evans returning to football.
 
HellsBells said:
I've not taken her word for it, I've taken the judge and jury's word for it. I didn't hear the evidence so I have to trust them.

Iirc the evidence was also given from the hotel clerk who testified she was drunk? And also Evans himself who said to the clerk that her should look after her because she was very sick. So it's not just her word against his, as I can see it.

Also if this inadmissible evidence is the fact that she tweeted some stuff later, then that is entirely inadmissible as it has absolutely nothing to do with the evening in question.
Click to expand...

That certainly should have been available, and was relevant in my opinion, as it questions the intent of the allegations, especially as she tried to conceal it. However, I was not referring to that piece of evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top