Ched Evans - Not Guilty

[Hanshithispantz]

Regardless of anything I don't think it's possible for the jury to have been 100% in their decision, that's the long and short of it for me, and although I don't feel it means much I do think it's important to at least recognise it. He's legally allowed to return back to football now so there's no reason why he shouldn't other than vigilantism; ironically the longer society continues to chastise him the longer his family and supporters will continue to vigilantly harass that poor girl.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Imo the only point that really can be debated is if he should be allowed to play football again. I fully believe criminals should be rehabilitated, I'm on the fence with him returning to football, considering the options he has available

 

Fair point, I don't see many good reasons to consider football as different to any other job really.

 

I don't know much about his other options, what are they?

[mrmojorisin75]

 

It obviously goes a lot deeper than just the signing of a player. Team mates, married ones, ones with sisters – would they want to be involved with a guy like this? Also Oldham’s female fan base, sure they supported the petition whether the signed it or not.

 

Bit sexist that isn't it? Assuming every single woman holds that opinion?

 

You think it’s sexist of me to assume that women are anti-rape? Righto.

 

As previous posters have pointed out, you do seem to have major comprehension problems. You probably shouldn't be bandying around terms like "thick as pigshit" about others.

 

To clarify, I think it's sexist of you to assume that all women think the same way about this case. Specifically that they all

a) agree that this is a clear cut case of rape

b) think that after serving the time in prison dictated by the British justice system he hasn't been punished enough and should not be able to resume his career with someone who is willing to employ him

 

It is also ignorant to think that only men without wives or sisters could possibly think that he should be left alone to get on with his life after serving his sentence.

 

He didn't serve his time he's out on licence. Also he's a convicted rapist,  you can't cast aspersions on the validity of his conviction without being in court and seeing all the evidence they saw. It's not as simple as "well it sounds like it's bit dodgy to me!!"

 

are other people out on licence allowed to work during the remainder of their sentence or are they all prevented from doing so?

 

Not sure. I'm merely stating the fact he hasn't "served his time". This all seems to be predicated on the fact it's not a "clear cut case" which doesn't sit very comfortably with me, considering none of us were in court and heard all the evidence. Seems to me if it was as shaky as people think he might have not been convicted?

 

I think it's highly unlikely there is some secret piece of conclusive evidence that was only available in court but hasn't been mentioned by anyone since. Based on what we know, i'm not comfortable with the decision reached by the jury and think he has every right to an appeal.

Same here. It was good hearing that woman on Question Time saying the same thing tbh (then getting shouted down mind). The blasé attitude of "he's been found guilty, he's a convicted rapist" in this case is ludicrous really.

 

I don't understand how can this be considered a 'blasé attitude'?

 

The guy was arrested. Went to trial. Was found guilty of rape and convicted as such. Therefore, he's a convicted rapist. It's not blasé at all, until such time he lodges a successful appeal and has it overturned, he will always be a convicted rapist.

It's blasé imo because there's clearly, clearly some doubt over the conviction and the idea that everyone currently saying he's a convicted rapist now so he should dig ditches for a living will just then gan aye he's not guilty now off you go Ched sits badly with me.

 

If read the details of this case and your conclusion is he's a convicted rapist so fuck him then I just don't know man.

 

Miscarriages of justice happen all the time, and him losing this next appeal wouldn't surprise me as I don't think the justice system will expose itself in this instance.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

 

I'm perfectly comfortable considering him a convicted rapist TBH. I still think he should be allowed to rebuild his life.

 

If he wants an appeal fair enough, if it succeeds he won't be a convicted rapist any more. I don't think those two concepts are hard to hold together in your mind.

 

This basically. He's got a cushy job available to him btw outside of football

 

I guess also we must resist the simplistic idea that all 'convicted rapists' are exactly the same. They obviously aren't, I think you can say that without minimising rape as a crime in general.

 

Obviously for legal/official purposes we currently don't have different degrees of rape, but in common sense there are rapists that are many times worse than Ched Evans.

 

I like, and agree with, how you've put that bit, and even taking this into account (which I'm sure we all do) the guy was convicted of rape based on court evidence and witness testimony.

 

Granted, from what we know about the paralytic state of the girl etc it's enormously different to an aggressive, pre-meditated act of rape but as Ian said, there are no different degrees of rape and there is still a victim.

 

Yeah, my meaning was that I'm able to consider him a 'convicted rapist' and believe he should be treated legally as such, while also recognising that he seems to sit on the more benign end of the spectrum.

 

I know it's hard to make this argument without seeming like I'm belittling what he's done or what the victim went through, I'm trying to find a way to express the idea that doesn't do that.

 

Maybe it's a back to front argument, I think some people's reluctance to commit to the idea he's a 'convicted rapist' is because they associate that term with much more violent and aggressive offences. And I'm saying the term can mean many things and we should be able to use it in the technical sense when we're debating what happens to him next, without necessarily any default level of moral judgement.

 

Confusing.

[mozy]

Blase is probably not the right word but it comes across like you would agree with any jury in the world on any case, whatever the outcome.

[mozy]

 

I'm perfectly comfortable considering him a convicted rapist TBH. I still think he should be allowed to rebuild his life.

 

If he wants an appeal fair enough, if it succeeds he won't be a convicted rapist any more. I don't think those two concepts are hard to hold together in your mind.

 

This basically. He's got a cushy job available to him btw outside of football

 

I guess also we must resist the simplistic idea that all 'convicted rapists' are exactly the same. They obviously aren't, I think you can say that without minimising rape as a crime in general.

 

Obviously for legal/official purposes we currently don't have different degrees of rape, but in common sense there are rapists that are many times worse than Ched Evans.

 

I like, and agree with, how you've put that bit, and even taking this into account (which I'm sure we all do) the guy was convicted of rape based on court evidence and witness testimony.

 

Granted, from what we know about the paralytic state of the girl etc it's enormously different to an aggressive, pre-meditated act of rape but as Ian said, there are no different degrees of rape and there is still a victim.

 

Yeah, my meaning was that I'm able to consider him a 'convicted rapist' and believe he should be treated legally as such, while also recognising that he seems to sit on the more benign end of the spectrum.

 

I know it's hard to make this argument without seeming like I'm belittling what he's done or what the victim went through, I'm trying to find a way to express the idea that doesn't do that.

 

Maybe it's a back to front argument, I think some people's reluctance to commit to the idea he's a 'convicted rapist' is because they associate that term with much more violent and aggressive offences. And I'm saying the term can mean many things.

 

Confusing.

 

Fully agree with this. If he'd been accused of something a degree below rape that didn't involve the word rape, I think he may have even pled guilty and certainly wouldn't be appealing it.

[ads]

 

It obviously goes a lot deeper than just the signing of a player. Team mates, married ones, ones with sisters – would they want to be involved with a guy like this? Also Oldham’s female fan base, sure they supported the petition whether the signed it or not.

 

Bit sexist that isn't it? Assuming every single woman holds that opinion?

 

You think it’s sexist of me to assume that women are anti-rape? Righto.

 

As previous posters have pointed out, you do seem to have major comprehension problems. You probably shouldn't be bandying around terms like "thick as pigshit" about others.

 

To clarify, I think it's sexist of you to assume that all women think the same way about this case. Specifically that they all

a) agree that this is a clear cut case of rape

b) think that after serving the time in prison dictated by the British justice system he hasn't been punished enough and should not be able to resume his career with someone who is willing to employ him

 

It is also ignorant to think that only men without wives or sisters could possibly think that he should be left alone to get on with his life after serving his sentence.

 

He didn't serve his time he's out on licence. Also he's a convicted rapist,  you can't cast aspersions on the validity of his conviction without being in court and seeing all the evidence they saw. It's not as simple as "well it sounds like it's bit dodgy to me!!"

 

are other people out on licence allowed to work during the remainder of their sentence or are they all prevented from doing so?

 

Not sure. I'm merely stating the fact he hasn't "served his time". This all seems to be predicated on the fact it's not a "clear cut case" which doesn't sit very comfortably with me, considering none of us were in court and heard all the evidence. Seems to me if it was as shaky as people think he might have not been convicted?

 

I think it's highly unlikely there is some secret piece of conclusive evidence that was only available in court but hasn't been mentioned by anyone since. Based on what we know, i'm not comfortable with the decision reached by the jury and think he has every right to an appeal.

Same here. It was good hearing that woman on Question Time saying the same thing tbh (then getting shouted down mind). The blasé attitude of "he's been found guilty, he's a convicted rapist" in this case is ludicrous really.

 

I don't understand how can this be considered a 'blasé attitude'?

 

The guy was arrested. Went to trial. Was found guilty of rape and convicted as such. Therefore, he's a convicted rapist. It's not blasé at all, until such time he lodges a successful appeal and has it overturned, he will always be a convicted rapist.

It's blasé imo because there's clearly, clearly some doubt over the conviction and the idea that everyone currently saying he's a convicted rapist now so he should dig ditches for a living will just then gan aye he's not guilty now off you go Ched sits badly with me.

 

If read the details of this case and your conclusion is he's a convicted rapist so fuck him then I just don't know man.

 

Miscarriages of justice happen all the time, and him losing this next appeal wouldn't surprise me as I don't think the justice system will expose itself in this instance.

 

I don't doubt that there's some uncertainties but the jury, at least a majority of them, considered the evidence and he was convicted of rape. Clear cut case or not, that's what happened.

 

I'm not suggesting he should only be allowed to take up menial jobs for the rest of his life, but I just don't know if he should be allowed to return to football.

 

I know there's an argument that football is a job, of course it is, but it's a priveleged one. There are now laws against him doing it but morally, nobody really wants to see it through and sign him up and he can't go abroad right now, can he?

[mrmojorisin75]

 

 

 

 

It obviously goes a lot deeper than just the signing of a player. Team mates, married ones, ones with sisters – would they want to be involved with a guy like this? Also Oldham’s female fan base, sure they supported the petition whether the signed it or not.

 

Bit sexist that isn't it? Assuming every single woman holds that opinion?

 

You think it’s sexist of me to assume that women are anti-rape? Righto.

 

As previous posters have pointed out, you do seem to have major comprehension problems. You probably shouldn't be bandying around terms like "thick as pigshit" about others.

 

To clarify, I think it's sexist of you to assume that all women think the same way about this case. Specifically that they all

a) agree that this is a clear cut case of rape

b) think that after serving the time in prison dictated by the British justice system he hasn't been punished enough and should not be able to resume his career with someone who is willing to employ him

 

It is also ignorant to think that only men without wives or sisters could possibly think that he should be left alone to get on with his life after serving his sentence.

 

He didn't serve his time he's out on licence. Also he's a convicted rapist,  you can't cast aspersions on the validity of his conviction without being in court and seeing all the evidence they saw. It's not as simple as "well it sounds like it's bit dodgy to me!!"

 

are other people out on licence allowed to work during the remainder of their sentence or are they all prevented from doing so?

 

Not sure. I'm merely stating the fact he hasn't "served his time". This all seems to be predicated on the fact it's not a "clear cut case" which doesn't sit very comfortably with me, considering none of us were in court and heard all the evidence. Seems to me if it was as shaky as people think he might have not been convicted?

 

I think it's highly unlikely there is some secret piece of conclusive evidence that was only available in court but hasn't been mentioned by anyone since. Based on what we know, i'm not comfortable with the decision reached by the jury and think he has every right to an appeal.

Same here. It was good hearing that woman on Question Time saying the same thing tbh (then getting shouted down mind). The blasé attitude of "he's been found guilty, he's a convicted rapist" in this case is ludicrous really.

 

I don't understand how can this be considered a 'blasé attitude'?

 

The guy was arrested. Went to trial. Was found guilty of rape and convicted as such. Therefore, he's a convicted rapist. It's not blasé at all, until such time he lodges a successful appeal and has it overturned, he will always be a convicted rapist.

 

It's not at all blasé. It seems like people reckon they know more about all the evidence presented than the jury.

 

He left out of the fire escape fwiw. If you wanted to consider that as evidence then that isn't really looking good for him.

 

No Santoon, I wouldn't consider as evidence because it's not. You'd have to interpret his motivation for doing it and that would be entirely subjective, much like the basis of his conviction in fact.

 

Funny when you think about the Serial Adnan trial and everyone being shocked that he was convicted on nothing more than the flaky testimony of Jay, yet Evans has been convicted on less but seemingly as he was a footballer he's judged to another standard.

[ads]

 

I'm perfectly comfortable considering him a convicted rapist TBH. I still think he should be allowed to rebuild his life.

 

If he wants an appeal fair enough, if it succeeds he won't be a convicted rapist any more. I don't think those two concepts are hard to hold together in your mind.

 

This basically. He's got a cushy job available to him btw outside of football

 

I guess also we must resist the simplistic idea that all 'convicted rapists' are exactly the same. They obviously aren't, I think you can say that without minimising rape as a crime in general.

 

Obviously for legal/official purposes we currently don't have different degrees of rape, but in common sense there are rapists that are many times worse than Ched Evans.

 

I like, and agree with, how you've put that bit, and even taking this into account (which I'm sure we all do) the guy was convicted of rape based on court evidence and witness testimony.

 

Granted, from what we know about the paralytic state of the girl etc it's enormously different to an aggressive, pre-meditated act of rape but as Ian said, there are no different degrees of rape and there is still a victim.

 

Yeah, my meaning was that I'm able to consider him a 'convicted rapist' and believe he should be treated legally as such, while also recognising that he seems to sit on the more benign end of the spectrum.

 

I know it's hard to make this argument without seeming like I'm belittling what he's done or what the victim went through, I'm trying to find a way to express the idea that doesn't do that.

 

Maybe it's a back to front argument, I think some people's reluctance to commit to the idea he's a 'convicted rapist' is because they associate that term with much more violent and aggressive offences. And I'm saying the term can mean many things and we should be able to use it in the technical sense when we're debating what happens to him next, without necessarily any default level of moral judgement.

 

Confusing.

 

I think that's probably the case for the majority of us to be honest.

 

Of course, you've got Ched Evans, convicted of rape after sleeping with a drunk girl who has little or no recollection of events (in a hotel room Evans himself paid for?) and then you've got umpteen cases of girls being preyed on, attacked and raped at knife point - is there a difference morally? Without a shadow of a doubt. Is there a difference in the outcome, post-prison sentence? There's not.

 

Though I absolutely understand why it probably doesn't sit right with people labelling him a convicted rapist, given the company he'll keep in that bracket.

[mrmojorisin75]

 

 

 

It obviously goes a lot deeper than just the signing of a player. Team mates, married ones, ones with sisters – would they want to be involved with a guy like this? Also Oldham’s female fan base, sure they supported the petition whether the signed it or not.

 

Bit sexist that isn't it? Assuming every single woman holds that opinion?

 

You think it’s sexist of me to assume that women are anti-rape? Righto.

 

As previous posters have pointed out, you do seem to have major comprehension problems. You probably shouldn't be bandying around terms like "thick as pigshit" about others.

 

To clarify, I think it's sexist of you to assume that all women think the same way about this case. Specifically that they all

a) agree that this is a clear cut case of rape

b) think that after serving the time in prison dictated by the British justice system he hasn't been punished enough and should not be able to resume his career with someone who is willing to employ him

 

It is also ignorant to think that only men without wives or sisters could possibly think that he should be left alone to get on with his life after serving his sentence.

 

He didn't serve his time he's out on licence. Also he's a convicted rapist,  you can't cast aspersions on the validity of his conviction without being in court and seeing all the evidence they saw. It's not as simple as "well it sounds like it's bit dodgy to me!!"

 

are other people out on licence allowed to work during the remainder of their sentence or are they all prevented from doing so?

 

Not sure. I'm merely stating the fact he hasn't "served his time". This all seems to be predicated on the fact it's not a "clear cut case" which doesn't sit very comfortably with me, considering none of us were in court and heard all the evidence. Seems to me if it was as shaky as people think he might have not been convicted?

 

I think it's highly unlikely there is some secret piece of conclusive evidence that was only available in court but hasn't been mentioned by anyone since. Based on what we know, i'm not comfortable with the decision reached by the jury and think he has every right to an appeal.

Same here. It was good hearing that woman on Question Time saying the same thing tbh (then getting shouted down mind). The blasé attitude of "he's been found guilty, he's a convicted rapist" in this case is ludicrous really.

 

I don't understand how can this be considered a 'blasé attitude'?

 

The guy was arrested. Went to trial. Was found guilty of rape and convicted as such. Therefore, he's a convicted rapist. It's not blasé at all, until such time he lodges a successful appeal and has it overturned, he will always be a convicted rapist.

It's blasé imo because there's clearly, clearly some doubt over the conviction and the idea that everyone currently saying he's a convicted rapist now so he should dig ditches for a living will just then gan aye he's not guilty now off you go Ched sits badly with me.

 

If read the details of this case and your conclusion is he's a convicted rapist so fuck him then I just don't know man.

 

Miscarriages of justice happen all the time, and him losing this next appeal wouldn't surprise me as I don't think the justice system will expose itself in this instance.

 

I don't doubt that there's some uncertainties but the jury, at least a majority of them, considered the evidence and he was convicted of rape. Clear cut case or not, that's what happened.

 

I'm not suggesting he should only be allowed to take up menial jobs for the rest of his life, but I just don't know if he should be allowed to return to football.

 

I know there's an argument that football is a job, of course it is, but it's a priveleged one. There are now laws against him doing it but morally, nobody really wants to see it through and sign him up and he can't go abroad right now, can he?

 

Oldest story in the book though man, jury's convicted the Guilford 4 and whoever else. Mistakes are made.

 

Unless he's a considered a danger to anyone in football or through football, i.e. do we expect him to prey on people through an abuse of his role as a footballer specifically, then he should be allowed to return to football.

 

Anything else makes no sense, the nature of the job and remuneration should have no bearing on things once the first point is considered.

[mrmojorisin75]

 

 

 

 

It obviously goes a lot deeper than just the signing of a player. Team mates, married ones, ones with sisters – would they want to be involved with a guy like this? Also Oldham’s female fan base, sure they supported the petition whether the signed it or not.

 

Bit sexist that isn't it? Assuming every single woman holds that opinion?

 

You think it’s sexist of me to assume that women are anti-rape? Righto.

 

As previous posters have pointed out, you do seem to have major comprehension problems. You probably shouldn't be bandying around terms like "thick as pigshit" about others.

 

To clarify, I think it's sexist of you to assume that all women think the same way about this case. Specifically that they all

a) agree that this is a clear cut case of rape

b) think that after serving the time in prison dictated by the British justice system he hasn't been punished enough and should not be able to resume his career with someone who is willing to employ him

 

It is also ignorant to think that only men without wives or sisters could possibly think that he should be left alone to get on with his life after serving his sentence.

 

He didn't serve his time he's out on licence. Also he's a convicted rapist,  you can't cast aspersions on the validity of his conviction without being in court and seeing all the evidence they saw. It's not as simple as "well it sounds like it's bit dodgy to me!!"

 

are other people out on licence allowed to work during the remainder of their sentence or are they all prevented from doing so?

 

Not sure. I'm merely stating the fact he hasn't "served his time". This all seems to be predicated on the fact it's not a "clear cut case" which doesn't sit very comfortably with me, considering none of us were in court and heard all the evidence. Seems to me if it was as shaky as people think he might have not been convicted?

 

I think it's highly unlikely there is some secret piece of conclusive evidence that was only available in court but hasn't been mentioned by anyone since. Based on what we know, i'm not comfortable with the decision reached by the jury and think he has every right to an appeal.

Same here. It was good hearing that woman on Question Time saying the same thing tbh (then getting shouted down mind). The blasé attitude of "he's been found guilty, he's a convicted rapist" in this case is ludicrous really.

 

I don't understand how can this be considered a 'blasé attitude'?

 

The guy was arrested. Went to trial. Was found guilty of rape and convicted as such. Therefore, he's a convicted rapist. It's not blasé at all, until such time he lodges a successful appeal and has it overturned, he will always be a convicted rapist.

 

It's not at all blasé. It seems like people reckon they know more about all the evidence presented than the jury.

 

He left out of the fire escape fwiw. If you wanted to consider that as evidence then that isn't really looking good for him.

 

No Santoon, I wouldn't consider as evidence because it's not. You'd have to interpret his motivation for doing it and that would be entirely subjective, much like the basis of his conviction in fact.

 

Funny when you think about the Serial Adnan trial and everyone being shocked that he was convicted on nothing more than the flaky testimony of Jay, yet Evans has been convicted on less but seemingly as he was a footballer he's judged to another standard.

 

Yes but you've done the same with your interpretation of other bits of info, it's entirely based on opinion.  I'm highlighting that while you can point to these things that make him seem not guilty, you can do the same the other way. In my opinion leaving out of the fire escape doesn't look good, neither does going to a room  where your mate has picked up a drunk girl. All my opinion of course. The only fact is he was convicted.

 

Nothing to do with him being a footballer, couldn't care less. Like I say he may well not have done it, no one knows except for him clearly. The rest is complete specualtion

I don't believe I've ever said I think he's not guilty, if I have it's not what I intended. I strongly believe he shouldn't have been convicted on the evidence presented as it wasn't nearly strong enough, which is why I brought up the Serial example.

[Hanshithispantz]

 

 

It obviously goes a lot deeper than just the signing of a player. Team mates, married ones, ones with sisters – would they want to be involved with a guy like this? Also Oldham’s female fan base, sure they supported the petition whether the signed it or not.

 

Bit sexist that isn't it? Assuming every single woman holds that opinion?

 

You think it’s sexist of me to assume that women are anti-rape? Righto.

 

As previous posters have pointed out, you do seem to have major comprehension problems. You probably shouldn't be bandying around terms like "thick as pigshit" about others.

 

To clarify, I think it's sexist of you to assume that all women think the same way about this case. Specifically that they all

a) agree that this is a clear cut case of rape

b) think that after serving the time in prison dictated by the British justice system he hasn't been punished enough and should not be able to resume his career with someone who is willing to employ him

 

It is also ignorant to think that only men without wives or sisters could possibly think that he should be left alone to get on with his life after serving his sentence.

 

He didn't serve his time he's out on licence. Also he's a convicted rapist,  you can't cast aspersions on the validity of his conviction without being in court and seeing all the evidence they saw. It's not as simple as "well it sounds like it's bit dodgy to me!!"

 

are other people out on licence allowed to work during the remainder of their sentence or are they all prevented from doing so?

 

Not sure. I'm merely stating the fact he hasn't "served his time". This all seems to be predicated on the fact it's not a "clear cut case" which doesn't sit very comfortably with me, considering none of us were in court and heard all the evidence. Seems to me if it was as shaky as people think he might have not been convicted?

 

I think it's highly unlikely there is some secret piece of conclusive evidence that was only available in court but hasn't been mentioned by anyone since. Based on what we know, i'm not comfortable with the decision reached by the jury and think he has every right to an appeal.

Same here. It was good hearing that woman on Question Time saying the same thing tbh (then getting shouted down mind). The blasé attitude of "he's been found guilty, he's a convicted rapist" in this case is ludicrous really.

 

I don't understand how can this be considered a 'blasé attitude'?

 

The guy was arrested. Went to trial. Was found guilty of rape and convicted as such. Therefore, he's a convicted rapist. It's not blasé at all, until such time he lodges a successful appeal and has it overturned, he will always be a convicted rapist.

 

It's not at all blasé. It seems like people reckon they know more about all the evidence presented than the jury.

 

He left out of the fire escape fwiw. If you wanted to consider that as evidence then that isn't really looking good for him. 

Him leaving by the fire escape means nothing, man. I've left a hotel through the window before for no other reason than I'm a daft cunt. People do strange shit like that all the tome when they've had a drink.

[ads]

 

 

It obviously goes a lot deeper than just the signing of a player. Team mates, married ones, ones with sisters – would they want to be involved with a guy like this? Also Oldham’s female fan base, sure they supported the petition whether the signed it or not.

 

Bit sexist that isn't it? Assuming every single woman holds that opinion?

 

You think it’s sexist of me to assume that women are anti-rape? Righto.

 

As previous posters have pointed out, you do seem to have major comprehension problems. You probably shouldn't be bandying around terms like "thick as pigshit" about others.

 

To clarify, I think it's sexist of you to assume that all women think the same way about this case. Specifically that they all

a) agree that this is a clear cut case of rape

b) think that after serving the time in prison dictated by the British justice system he hasn't been punished enough and should not be able to resume his career with someone who is willing to employ him

 

It is also ignorant to think that only men without wives or sisters could possibly think that he should be left alone to get on with his life after serving his sentence.

 

He didn't serve his time he's out on licence. Also he's a convicted rapist,  you can't cast aspersions on the validity of his conviction without being in court and seeing all the evidence they saw. It's not as simple as "well it sounds like it's bit dodgy to me!!"

 

are other people out on licence allowed to work during the remainder of their sentence or are they all prevented from doing so?

 

Not sure. I'm merely stating the fact he hasn't "served his time". This all seems to be predicated on the fact it's not a "clear cut case" which doesn't sit very comfortably with me, considering none of us were in court and heard all the evidence. Seems to me if it was as shaky as people think he might have not been convicted?

 

I think it's highly unlikely there is some secret piece of conclusive evidence that was only available in court but hasn't been mentioned by anyone since. Based on what we know, i'm not comfortable with the decision reached by the jury and think he has every right to an appeal.

Same here. It was good hearing that woman on Question Time saying the same thing tbh (then getting shouted down mind). The blasé attitude of "he's been found guilty, he's a convicted rapist" in this case is ludicrous really.

 

I don't understand how can this be considered a 'blasé attitude'?

 

The guy was arrested. Went to trial. Was found guilty of rape and convicted as such. Therefore, he's a convicted rapist. It's not blasé at all, until such time he lodges a successful appeal and has it overturned, he will always be a convicted rapist.

 

It's not at all blasé. It seems like people reckon they know more about all the evidence presented than the jury.

 

He left out of the fire escape fwiw. If you wanted to consider that as evidence then that isn't really looking good for him. 

Him leaving by the fire escape means nothing, man. I've left a hotel through the window before for no other reason than I'm a daft cunt. People do strange shit like that all the tome when they've had a drink.

 

at this.

 

I don't think though, given the circumstances, that leaving through the exit helped his defence case though.

[Hanshithispantz]

It definitely wouldn't have helped his defence, that's the kind of thing that can be twisted by the prosecution to appear as a sign of guilt. There was obviously more to the prosecutions case than that like.

[ads]

Absolutely. The defence probably said what you said, Hans "Ched did that for no other reason than he's a daft cunt"

 

But the prosecution probaly saw it as a pretty guilty action, no doubt.

[mrmojorisin75]

It's blase in the extreme to suggest there is something majorly wrong with his conviction. For God's sake the Criminal Justice System, whilst not perfect is one of the most respected in the World.

 

He has already been to the Court of Appeal and was refused leave to appeal before the full Court, the process that lead to him being convicted was fine.

You say that but where's the smoking gun in this case? Whenever anyone is discussing the evidence publicly available there's never a damning piece of evidence against Evans.  There's some stuff that "looks bad" but is that really enough?

 

Everything discussed is 'in his favour' so to speak. Considering the campaign against him if there was such evidence used in court that proves beyond doubt he's guilty then I think we'd have heard about it by now.

 

As far as I know it was decided in court the lass was too drunk to consent (as she said she had no memory and looked pissed on camera) and that's essentially the basis of his conviction.  Of course there would have been a lot more to it than and if I'm wrong I'm wrong but I understand this as the ultimate basis to convict.

 

You can tell me "it's the criminal justice system" all you like but that's no guarantee the right decision was made.

[ads]

It's blase in the extreme to suggest there is something majorly wrong with his conviction. For God's sake the Criminal Justice System, whilst not perfect is one of the most respected in the World.

 

He has already been to the Court of Appeal and was refused leave to appeal before the full Court, the process that lead to him being convicted was fine.

You say that but where's the smoking gun in this case? Whenever anyone is discussing the evidence publicly available there's never a damning piece of evidence against Evans.  There's some stuff that "looks bad" but is that really enough?

 

Everything discussed is 'in his favour' so to speak. Considering the campaign against him if there was such evidence used in court that proves beyond doubt he's guilty then I think we'd have heard about it by now.

 

As far as I know it was decided in court the lass was too drunk to consent (as she said she had no memory and looked pissed on camera) and that's essentially the basis of his conviction.  Of course there would have been a lot more to it than and if I'm wrong I'm wrong but I understand this as the ultimate basis to convict.

 

You can tell me "it's the criminal justice system" all you like but that's no guarantee the right decision was made.

 

I think we can all probably agree that, from what we've read, heard and seen ourselves, it does look dubious but on the same score, they found him guilty and he was sentenced as such.

 

[mrmojorisin75]

It's blase in the extreme to suggest there is something majorly wrong with his conviction. For God's sake the Criminal Justice System, whilst not perfect is one of the most respected in the World.

 

He has already been to the Court of Appeal and was refused leave to appeal before the full Court, the process that lead to him being convicted was fine.

You say that but where's the smoking gun in this case? Whenever anyone is discussing the evidence publicly available there's never a damning piece of evidence against Evans.  There's some stuff that "looks bad" but is that really enough?

 

Everything discussed is 'in his favour' so to speak. Considering the campaign against him if there was such evidence used in court that proves beyond doubt he's guilty then I think we'd have heard about it by now.

 

As far as I know it was decided in court the lass was too drunk to consent (as she said she had no memory and looked pissed on camera) and that's essentially the basis of his conviction.  Of course there would have been a lot more to it than and if I'm wrong I'm wrong but I understand this as the ultimate basis to convict.

 

You can tell me "it's the criminal justice system" all you like but that's no guarantee the right decision was made.

 

I think we can all probably agree that, from what we've read, heard and seen ourselves, it does look dubious but on the same score, they found him guilty and he was sentenced as such.

Aye there's nothing more to say about it really I suppose

[ads]

It's just a massively complicated situation for everyone to comprehend when we'll probably never know what really happened.

 

The only person who know's exactly what happened is Evans himself.

[BlueStar]

How much of the "He's served his time" is actually "I don't think what he did was rape in the first place"?  Like if he'd just jumped on some sober woman in an alley walking back from midnight mass, held her down and raped her, would people still be fine with him playing for their club or in their league as soon as he was out on license?

[geordiesteve710]

It's blase in the extreme to suggest there is something majorly wrong with his conviction. For God's sake the Criminal Justice System, whilst not perfect is one of the most respected in the World.

 

He has already been to the Court of Appeal and was refused leave to appeal before the full Court, the process that lead to him being convicted was fine.

You say that but where's the smoking gun in this case? Whenever anyone is discussing the evidence publicly available there's never a damning piece of evidence against Evans.  There's some stuff that "looks bad" but is that really enough?

 

Everything discussed is 'in his favour' so to speak. Considering the campaign against him if there was such evidence used in court that proves beyond doubt he's guilty then I think we'd have heard about it by now.

 

As far as I know it was decided in court the lass was too drunk to consent (as she said she had no memory and looked p*ssed on camera) and that's essentially the basis of his conviction.  Of course there would have been a lot more to it than and if I'm wrong I'm wrong but I understand this as the ultimate basis to convict.

 

You can tell me "it's the criminal justice system" all you like but that's no guarantee the right decision was made.

 

I think we can all probably agree that, from what we've read, heard and seen ourselves, it does look dubious but on the same score, they found him guilty and he was sentenced as such.

 

Pretty fair summary imo. The one thing I can't get over is the hypocrisy of those who are more than happy to point to "he's been convicted by the legal system" yet are completely unprepared to accept that under the very same legal system he has served the custodial part of his sentence and is now entitled to resume his career on probation. Like they're saying the law and our courts are always right and cannot be questioned- until they disagree with them, then that doesn't apply.

 

The one real positive is that the case and media furore have really shone a spotlight on what legally constitutes rape. If the threat of going to jail is enough to make young lads in general think twice about taking advantage of that pissed up young lass they met when she was falling all over the place in the club then that's got to be a good thing.

[ads]

How much of the "He's served his time" is actually "I don't think what he did was rape in the first place"?  Like if he'd just jumped on some sober woman in an alley walking back from midnight mass, held her down and raped her, would people still be fine with him playing for their club or in their league as soon as he was out on license?

 

Again, I think a lot of the grey areas surrounding the case and Evans' insistence himself that he's innocent, play a part in this. Clubs who are/were interested in him, are perhaps hopeful that at some point his conviction may be overturned.

 

If he had done that as you said, had brutally raped someone and admitted it in court, would any of these clubs still want him to play for them? You'd assume not.

[mrmojorisin75]

It's blase in the extreme to suggest there is something majorly wrong with his conviction. For God's sake the Criminal Justice System, whilst not perfect is one of the most respected in the World.

 

He has already been to the Court of Appeal and was refused leave to appeal before the full Court, the process that lead to him being convicted was fine.

You say that but where's the smoking gun in this case? Whenever anyone is discussing the evidence publicly available there's never a damning piece of evidence against Evans.  There's some stuff that "looks bad" but is that really enough?

 

Everything discussed is 'in his favour' so to speak. Considering the campaign against him if there was such evidence used in court that proves beyond doubt he's guilty then I think we'd have heard about it by now.

 

As far as I know it was decided in court the lass was too drunk to consent (as she said she had no memory and looked p*ssed on camera) and that's essentially the basis of his conviction.  Of course there would have been a lot more to it than and if I'm wrong I'm wrong but I understand this as the ultimate basis to convict.

 

You can tell me "it's the criminal justice system" all you like but that's no guarantee the right decision was made.

 

I think we can all probably agree that, from what we've read, heard and seen ourselves, it does look dubious but on the same score, they found him guilty and he was sentenced as such.

 

Pretty fair summary imo. The one thing I can't get over is the hypocrisy of those who are more than happy to point to "he's been convicted by the legal system" yet are completely unprepared to accept that under the very same legal system he has served the custodial part of his sentence and is now entitled to resume his career on probation. Like they're saying the law and our courts are always right and cannot be questioned- until they disagree with them, then that doesn't apply.

 

The one real positive is that the case and media furore have really shone a spotlight on what legally constitutes rape. If the threat of going to jail is enough to make young lads in general think twice about taking advantage of that pissed up young lass they met when she was falling all over the place in the club then that's got to be a good thing.

[Hanshithispantz]

How much of the "He's served his time" is actually "I don't think what he did was rape in the first place"?  Like if he'd just jumped on some sober woman in an alley walking back from midnight mass, held her down and raped her, would people still be fine with him playing for their club or in their league as soon as he was out on license?

What if he'd been done for GBH instead of rape? Would people be fine with him returning to football as soon as he was released? The overwhelming evidence is that they would.

[mrmojorisin75]

 

 

 

It's blase in the extreme to suggest there is something majorly wrong with his conviction. For God's sake the Criminal Justice System, whilst not perfect is one of the most respected in the World.

 

He has already been to the Court of Appeal and was refused leave to appeal before the full Court, the process that lead to him being convicted was fine.

You say that but where's the smoking gun in this case? Whenever anyone is discussing the evidence publicly available there's never a damning piece of evidence against Evans.  There's some stuff that "looks bad" but is that really enough?

 

Everything discussed is 'in his favour' so to speak. Considering the campaign against him if there was such evidence used in court that proves beyond doubt he's guilty then I think we'd have heard about it by now.

 

As far as I know it was decided in court the lass was too drunk to consent (as she said she had no memory and looked p*ssed on camera) and that's essentially the basis of his conviction.  Of course there would have been a lot more to it than and if I'm wrong I'm wrong but I understand this as the ultimate basis to convict.

 

You can tell me "it's the criminal justice system" all you like but that's no guarantee the right decision was made.

 

I think we can all probably agree that, from what we've read, heard and seen ourselves, it does look dubious but on the same score, they found him guilty and he was sentenced as such.

 

Pretty fair summary imo. The one thing I can't get over is the hypocrisy of those who are more than happy to point to "he's been convicted by the legal system" yet are completely unprepared to accept that under the very same legal system he has served the custodial part of his sentence and is now entitled to resume his career on probation. Like they're saying the law and our courts are always right and cannot be questioned- until they disagree with them, then that doesn't apply.

 

The one real positive is that the case and media furore have really shone a spotlight on what legally constitutes rape. If the threat of going to jail is enough to make young lads in general think twice about taking advantage of that pissed up young lass they met when she was falling all over the place in the club then that's got to be a good thing.

 

Don't think anyone is really saying that tbh. It's whether he can return to football is the contentious issue. No one is denying the bloke the right to work. Whilst on licence I'm not sure what sanctions apply

 

No it's exactly what you're saying isn't it because the law doesn't specify anything for rape convictions/footballers so legally he's entitled to go back. Thus him returning to football shouldn't be contentious at all should it?