Ched Evans - Not Guilty

[Pilko]

 

 

Lee Hughes and Luke McCormack were convicted for killing people (admittedly 'accidentally') and returned to play football again.

 

Whilst Evans may or may not be a rapist under the official definition, chances are he probably didn't intentionally rape this woman.

 

Therefore I find a lot of the furore, arguments, and massively skewed viewpoints from the same feminist sorts baying for Dapper Laughs' blood every five minutes to be fuelled by hysteria. Where were these people when the two aforementioned people got back into football?

 

The Dapper Laughs thing is a totally different argument of course and I don't happen to agree with a lot of what he has said, but at the minute there's loads of lasses I have on Facebook posting these heavily feminist articles about these issues all the time and I'm quite sure the vast majority are bandwagoning it a fair bit.

 

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.

 

He got convicted.

 

That's not the point I'm arguing. I'm talking about whether it was premeditated rape or not; the court decided it was rape whether you agree with it or not.

[Interpolic]

I really don't see why he should be given a clean slate when his victim is now onto her second new identity and unable to get on with her life. Regardless of his claims of innocence he was convicted in a court of law of rape. His victim was too intoxicated to legally consent but he seems to think it's fine to have sex with someone who couldnt even stand up.

 

Even taking aside the rape conviction, he can never been classed as a "role model": he's cheated on his girlfriend and had sex with another woman with someone watching!

 

Fair play to Jessica Ennis-Hill and the others connected with Sheffield United (ambassadors?) who've take the stance they have.

 

Just not getting this, sorry.

 

Just not getting what?

 

Why shouldn't he be given a clean slate when he's served his time and he's still a "talented" footballer?

 

What's it got to do with how the victim's life has gone since, the 2 situations are actually unrelated if you think about it logically, or else you're getting into "give soldiers Tony Blair's wages" territory.

 

I could not disagree more. The 2 situations could not be anymore linked. The victim had her identity first leaked by friends and family of Ched Evans and the impact on her life as a result of that and what happened in that hotel room mean that she has not been allowed to move on with her life. So why should he? I hate this "served his time" line when referring to a rapist.

 

What has him still being a talented footballer got to do with anything? Should Rolf Harris get another TV show when he gets out (if he ever does)?

 

The situations are linked but what's happened to the lass in terms of her new identity getting blown is beyond his control.  If that hadn't happened to her then I assume you'd have been a bit more lenient about this.  It goes without saying that that's fucking stupid.

 

From what I've read about the case I'm just not sure if I buy into the verdict whatsoever, I'll be honest.  I wouldn't have done what he did, my life is a million miles from that and I'm not that type of person whatsoever but it seems he turned up at a hotel and had sex with a lass that was totally smashed without any idea of the consequences.

 

He seems to have never felt like he raped the lass and tbh I don't think he did either, going by what I've read.  I think that sort of thing happens a lot.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

 

Lee Hughes and Luke McCormack were convicted for killing people (admittedly 'accidentally') and returned to play football again.

 

Whilst Evans may or may not be a rapist under the official definition, chances are he probably didn't intentionally rape this woman.

 

Therefore I find a lot of the furore, arguments, and massively skewed viewpoints from the same feminist sorts baying for Dapper Laughs' blood every five minutes to be fuelled by hysteria. Where were these people when the two aforementioned people got back into football?

 

The Dapper Laughs thing is a totally different argument of course and I don't happen to agree with a lot of what he has said, but at the minute there's loads of lasses I have on Facebook posting these heavily feminist articles about these issues all the time and I'm quite sure the vast majority are bandwagoning it a fair bit.

 

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. 

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

Haven't read it all but considering the girl said she didn't remember consenting to sex with either of them or even going back to the hotel, it seems Evans was done purely on account of him coming to the hotel (rather than going there with her), and leaving via the emergency exit (rather than the normal). Appears the jury just thought his actions were more dodgy than the other guy.

 

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. 

[Hanshithispantz]

If he'd dragged her into a bush and held her down by the throat I'd be thoroughly in the "kill the cunt" bracket. I just think this is far too big of a grey area to completely ruin a bloke's life over.

[Wullie]

The length of sentence isn't a problem, it's this daft law where everyone is eligible for release at half time. Makes a a bit of a farce of the whole idea of sentencing tbh.

[Guest firetotheworks]

I don't understand why we're taking the jury's decision, or our legal system as a trusted or unquestioned proof of guilt. It's the fairest system but it's not without flaws and a history of mistakes.

[Interpolic]

If he'd dragged her into a bush and held her down by the throat I'd be thoroughly in the "kill the cunt" bracket. I just think this is far too big of a grey area to completely ruin a bloke's life over.

 

This is it for me.  I don't see the bloke as a monster whatsoever.  Watch this man, she's just full of shit:

 

[Wullie]

 

Lee Hughes and Luke McCormack were convicted for killing people (admittedly 'accidentally') and returned to play football again.

 

Whilst Evans may or may not be a rapist under the official definition, chances are he probably didn't intentionally rape this woman.

 

Therefore I find a lot of the furore, arguments, and massively skewed viewpoints from the same feminist sorts baying for Dapper Laughs' blood every five minutes to be fuelled by hysteria. Where were these people when the two aforementioned people got back into football?

 

The Dapper Laughs thing is a totally different argument of course and I don't happen to agree with a lot of what he has said, but at the minute there's loads of lasses I have on Facebook posting these heavily feminist articles about these issues all the time and I'm quite sure the vast majority are bandwagoning it a fair bit.

 

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.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

The length of sentence isn't a problem, it's this daft law where everyone is eligible for release at half time. Makes a a bit of a farce of the whole idea of sentencing tbh.

 

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.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

 

Lee Hughes and Luke McCormack were convicted for killing people (admittedly 'accidentally') and returned to play football again.

 

Whilst Evans may or may not be a rapist under the official definition, chances are he probably didn't intentionally rape this woman.

 

Therefore I find a lot of the furore, arguments, and massively skewed viewpoints from the same feminist sorts baying for Dapper Laughs' blood every five minutes to be fuelled by hysteria. Where were these people when the two aforementioned people got back into football?

 

The Dapper Laughs thing is a totally different argument of course and I don't happen to agree with a lot of what he has said, but at the minute there's loads of lasses I have on Facebook posting these heavily feminist articles about these issues all the time and I'm quite sure the vast majority are bandwagoning it a fair bit.

 

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.

[Disco]

The lass that was on Newsnight about a month ago opposing this just made me think Ched Evans should be able to do whatever the fuck he wants, she was that wrong with everything she said.

 

Just to tackle one issue, why the fuck would he be remorseful when he has always maintained his innocence?

 

It's a difficult issue that I'd usually veer on the side of liberal with but the hysteria with this isn't sitting well with me for some reason.  One of the things that daft lass kept on prattling on about on the telly was "Ched Evans knew when he turned up at that hotel that there was a drunk woman there that he could have sex with".

 

Erm, so fuck?

 

The SSN one - trying her darndest to make as much cash as possible off this.

[Pilko]

I don't understand why we're taking the jury's decision, or our legal system as a trusted or unquestioned proof of guilt. It's the fairest system but it's not without flaws and a history of mistakes.

 

Me neither, this is why the reaction from a lot of people (not this thread particularly) has pissed me off so much.

[Dave]

 

Lee Hughes and Luke McCormack were convicted for killing people (admittedly 'accidentally') and returned to play football again.

 

Whilst Evans may or may not be a rapist under the official definition, chances are he probably didn't intentionally rape this woman.

 

Therefore I find a lot of the furore, arguments, and massively skewed viewpoints from the same feminist sorts baying for Dapper Laughs' blood every five minutes to be fuelled by hysteria. Where were these people when the two aforementioned people got back into football?

 

The Dapper Laughs thing is a totally different argument of course and I don't happen to agree with a lot of what he has said, but at the minute there's loads of lasses I have on Facebook posting these heavily feminist articles about these issues all the time and I'm quite sure the vast majority are bandwagoning it a fair bit.

 

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.

 

I've noticed this too. I would wager a lot of people saying he shouldn't be allowed back know nothing of the case, or if it was proposed to them would simply state 'he's a convicted rapist, the circumstances are irrelevant'.

[Pilko]

I get the feeling that Santoon could tell me the sky was blue in this thread and it would irritate the fuck out of me. Congrats.

[Hanshithispantz]

I don't understand why we're taking the jury's decision, or our legal system as a trusted or unquestioned proof of guilt. It's the fairest system but it's not without flaws and a history of mistakes.

 

Me neither, this is why the reaction from a lot of people (not this thread particularly) has pissed 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.

[sixx]

No.

 

Being a professional footballer accounts for lot more than just holding a job at playing football. That's my opinion at least but I do respect that other people look at it in different terms. Indeed it wont help society nor offenders to ostracize or isolate people like Evans, but when you've committed a crime such as this some avenues of life and society should remain closed.

[Guest firetotheworks]

I don't understand why we're taking the jury's decision, or our legal system as a trusted or unquestioned proof of guilt. It's the fairest system but it's not without flaws and a history of mistakes.

 

Me neither, this is why the reaction from a lot of people (not this thread particularly) has pissed me off so much.

 

Well what else can we go on? his word/hers? it's the only quantifiable data.

Just think about Serial...

[mrmojorisin75]

If he'd dragged her into a bush and held her down by the throat I'd be thoroughly in the "kill the cunt" bracket. I just think this is far too big of a grey area to completely ruin a bloke's life over.

 

This is it for me.  I don't see the bloke as a monster whatsoever.  Watch this man, she's just full of shit:

 

 

is she a television presenter? she can hardly talk

 

she's worried about her community man, ched's obviously going to influence the next generation of footballer to rape lasses in hotel rooms having because he presumably thinks it's cool to have lost 3 (?) years of his life, be on the sex offenders register and be a hated figure for the rest of his life...the kids will lap it up

 

 

[joeyt]

Most surprising news to come out of all this for me was that Brammall Lane has a stand named after Jess Ennis

[mrmojorisin75]

I don't understand why we're taking the jury's decision, or our legal system as a trusted or unquestioned proof of guilt. It's the fairest system but it's not without flaws and a history of mistakes.

 

Me neither, this is why the reaction from a lot of people (not this thread particularly) has pissed 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

[Kimbo]

No.

 

Being a professional footballer accounts for lot more than just holding a job at playing football. That's my opinion at least but I do respect that other people look at it in different terms. Indeed it wont help society nor offenders to ostracize or isolate people like Evans, but when you've committed a crime such as this some avenues of life and society should remain closed.

 

Jobs where he would be considered a risk are closed off to him, unless we think he's going to rape a teammate I don't think it applies.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

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.

[Pilko]

I don't understand why we're taking the jury's decision, or our legal system as a trusted or unquestioned proof of guilt. It's the fairest system but it's not without flaws and a history of mistakes.

 

Me neither, this is why the reaction from a lot of people (not this thread particularly) has pissed 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

 

He might well do, I have no idea, as none of us know what happened in the hotel room. He might equally not do though.

 

Why then do you seem to be convinced that he's definitely guilty? (Yes, he was convicted, we know) Is it due to some massive faith you have in the British criminal justice system? I'm asking specifically about this case.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

It is odd that rapists and sex offenders often get more lenient sentences than drug dealers.

 

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.