Shays Given Tim Flowers

There is a lot of moral ambiguity in contemporary sexual discourse but you need to make a distinction between that and whether or not its ok to have sex with someone who isn't in a position to give consent and or doesn't give consent. The Jury were asked to decide whether she consented or whether Evan's had a reasonable belief in her consent.

Pretty sensible stuff Newsted . It's a difficult subject.

Also all those people getting fucked in the arse by drug dealers and traffickers wouldnt be subjected to the same sort of treatment if the product wasn't illegal.

Dave spots a gap in the market.

Peadophiles share their images for free, Dave. j/k

He wouldn't really be living a life of privilege, he'd be living whatever life was provided for from the income from the job he is now free to carry out. Just so happens his wages will be higher than most people. Hes going to be a rich man, it sticks in the craw. Jesus

Me neither, this is why the reaction from a lot of people (not this thread particularly) has p*ssed me off so much. Well what else can we go on? his word/hers? it's the only quantifiable data. That's the point though, do we really have to react to this at all? He's done his time and now he's free, nobody truly knows if he did actually rape her or not so any decision we make is still shrouded in doubt. That's my point though, at this point the only thing that is certain is he was convicted. That's literally it. I have no idea what went down, but the only thing we know for sure is that he was convicted. i was semi-serious before mind, i reckon he'll get the conviction overturned personally Next to no chance. Fresh evidence would probably be the only chance and he appears to have exhausted the sensible avenues for this at the Court of Appeal when he appealed against sentence and conviction. Court of appeal said the trial went as it should. CCRC won't do much at all unless something Earth shattering comes in. he is taking it to a further appeal of some kind though isn't he? sure i read that CCRC = Criminal Cases Review Commission. Thats who he spoke about in his press release. Far more likely that was just posturing for prospective clubs than any legitimate belief of it going anywhere. I'm pretty sure that the most they can do is refer cases to the Court of Appeal anyway.

Do you think so? A drug dealer can ruin the lives of many people and provide an avenue for organised criminals to profit, who themselves ruin the lives and likely kill many other people. Obviously these sex offences are horrendous for the victim, but the overall affect on society is nowhere near. Assuming we're not talking hardcore paedophiles or serial rapists. Not that comparing crimes is that productive anyway, just thought it was interesting you made that point. I think the guy who fucks a persons mind up for life by sexually assaulting them is far worse than the guy selling MDMA. Society's stance on drugs is stupid.

Me neither, this is why the reaction from a lot of people (not this thread particularly) has p*ssed me off so much. Well what else can we go on? his word/hers? it's the only quantifiable data. That's the point though, do we really have to react to this at all? He's done his time and now he's free, nobody truly knows if he did actually rape her or not so any decision we make is still shrouded in doubt. That's my point though, at this point the only thing that is certain is he was convicted. That's literally it. I have no idea what went down, but the only thing we know for sure is that he was convicted. i was semi-serious before mind, i reckon he'll get the conviction overturned personally Next to no chance. Fresh evidence would probably be the only chance and he appears to have exhausted the sensible avenues for this at the Court of Appeal when he appealed against sentence and conviction. Court of appeal said the trial went as it should. CCRC won't do much at all unless something Earth shattering comes in.

Agree with your sentiment Hans but shrouded in doubt is a bit strong. Also if he wasn't a footballer then I don't think people would mind. Also if he wasn't a footballer I doubt his victim would have been compensated for her attack (I assume she sued him in the civil court post conviction, it literally couldn't have been easier for her to do). I mean it's not going to sit right that someone who has been found guilty of an offence like this is able to live a life of privilege. But then if we strive to have equality before the law I'm not sure we should be making exceptions for footballers.

Hollywood has ruined Russian credibility. :lol:

You can't say "chances are he didn't intentionally rape this woman" you have nothing to base that on. His own vehement protestation that he's innocent despite the conviction is what I'm basing it on. The court would have come down like a ton of bricks if there was a hint of him raping her "on purpose", whereas the conviction was largely circumstancial. Hmm there is a sentencing guideline for most offences that is very commonly used by Judges. They use it to fit cases into a category which then suggests a starting point for sentence and a range. Looks like the Judge took a view that this was a category 3 rape (least serious). It has a starting point of 5 years. Rapes admittedly involve the same act but some are far worse than others. There seems to be a bit of a trend that you're not allowed to say this, which strikes me as completely bizarre. There are so many elephants in the room with sexual offences and their prosecution. It's a big part of the problem in processing complaints effectively. Ironically most of the things you 'can't say' play directly into the hands of defence lawyers.

Well yes and no. Like when you really think about the mechanics of keeping people locked up for years and what that achieves I'm not sure it is farcical. Then there's the cost. Not everyone is eligible for release at half time but generally, yeah.

Juries come back with some crazy decisions. Not saying that this was the case here, but it's not a perfect system. The whole Criminal Justice System is dependant on judgment calls from people.

You can't say "chances are he didn't intentionally rape this woman" you have nothing to base that on. His own vehement protestation that he's innocent despite the conviction is what I'm basing it on. The court would have come down like a ton of bricks if there was a hint of him raping her "on purpose", whereas the conviction was largely circumstancial. Hmm there is a sentencing guideline for most offences that is very commonly used by Judges. They use it to fit cases into a category which then suggests a starting point for sentence and a range. Looks like the Judge took a view that this was a category 3 rape (least serious). It has a starting point of 5 years. Rapes admittedly involve the same act but some are far worse than others.

Really? I'd thought you just had to make a positive contribution to society on release. Something which is far more likely to happen if you're allowed to return to work (of whatever kind). Plenty of offenders won't ever show remorse for their actions. It is not difficult to imagine scenarios why. It is odd that rapists and sex offenders often get more lenient sentences than drug dealers.

Nearly 4000 words in that summary pretty selective point of reference there.

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans A thorough summary of the case is provided here. Well worth a read if you want to know what it was about.

For every account like what Groo just posted there's one where someone absolves him of it; suggesting that nobody other than those involved truly know the facts. Was the phone video used in the trial? Surely that would be fairly conclusive. But anyway, as Ian says the jury decided he was guilty. The whole point of our system is that they make the call. Yeah the question really is should someone be able to return to work once they have been found guilty of an offence and punished? You can make it offence specific if you like.

Pretty difficult to say without being in Court throughout. Tried to follow it at the time. It was weird that Clayton McDonald got found not guilty for having sex with the same girl at the same time.

It's uncomfortable because of the offence but I can't take issue with the principle that somebody should be able to get on with their lives once they have done the punishment society has demanded. Ched Evans didn't decide the punishment he should face. I think that's actually quite an important lesson to teach young people. Certainly much more important than the notion of the footballer as role model. Parents should be the role models for children.

I bet the girls all love you.... [move]BECAUSE YOU LOVE GOING DOWN[/move]

Is there a football fans against FIFA type of thing? Wonder how many fans in England would be in favour of pulling out of FIFA?

Imagine making a post like this without pictures, absolutely reprehensible. NSFW

What authorities? Everybody knows what's going on if they can be bothered to research.