Ched Evans - Not Guilty

[Smal]

I don't think it's possible to defend his actions since coming out of prison, tbh. The girl he raped has had to change her identity and move 5 times now thanks to his defenders tracking her down and he's done nothing to stop that.

[brummie]

I find it hard to see it as persecution - the only reason he's getting any coverage in the media, old or new, is that he's either trying to get back into football, or his retinue are spending money on stating his case.

 

He's a convicted rapist. Pointing this out isn't persecution, it is a statement of fact.

 

I agree he should have been unequivocal, but he hasn't, he's been the exact opposite, and that is a large part of the problem.

[mrmojorisin75]

Eh? Why shouldn't people be allowed to have petitions against it?

 

they are allowed, but they're clearly massively open to abuse and keeping evans out of football has become a thing in itself now imho - if it was a poll of genuine supporters who were always knocking him back then aye fine but it's clearly not

 

assuming those 4k/20k oldham petition numbers are correct it's just nonsense

 

I see your point here but I think you need to look at the repercussions of him getting back into football. Parents, regardless of whether they like football or not, will want to sign the petition if they have kids who like football.

 

so it's think of the children now?

 

i'll not agree he should be blocked from playing if clubs want him to play for them, which they obviously do

 

He isn't blocked from returning to football, though.

 

That's a pretty important point.

 

Clubs are not signing him because the fans or sponsors - or both - do not want to see their club associated with someone like him. That's entirely understandable, but it is not the same thing as being "blocked" from playing, which implies some form of legal restriction.

 

yes not legally blocked obviously, he's being effectively blocked due to the ongoing campaign against him whenever anyone goes near him

 

as for the bolded part i don't believe for a second any of the sponsors are reacting on moral grounds due to 'association with' ched fucking evans like, they're reacting because they feel they have to when 20,000 mouth breathers sign an online petition through fear of loss of potential money

 

same for the clubs, this is not a moral issue anymore it's basically a question of whether a club will call the bluff of online petitions etc. and sponsors bending over for them

 

as for the "he's been found guilty that's it" argument i don't know where to start, so i'm not going to

[brummie]

as for the "he's been found guilty that's it" argument i don't know where to start, so i'm not going to

 

But that's the important point. He's a convicted rapist. End of. Until evidence surfaces to change that, he is going to remain one. It is retinue's refusal to stop acting like this is not true which has made the situation worse.

 

That is why he is struggling to get back into football, because people don't really want to be associating with the likes of Ched Evans.

 

How can a football club do things like community activism, do good work outside the actual football (and a lot of them do) if people can point at them and say "look at the sort of person you employ"?

[mozy]

Oldham have received death threats - SSN. Can't imagine anyone going for him - just not worth the hassle.

 

The fuck? So murder is now seen as morally more acceptable than rape.

 

In the common consciousness I think that actually is the case tbh.

 

Definitely.

 

I think it all depends on context, personally. This case is really not comparable to (or worse than) murder.

[mrmojorisin75]

as for the "he's been found guilty that's it" argument i don't know where to start, so i'm not going to

 

But that's the important point. He's a convicted rapist. End of. Until evidence surfaces to change that, he is going to remain one. It is retinue's refusal to stop acting like this is not true which has made the situation worse.

 

That is why he is struggling to get back into football, because people don't really want to be associating with the likes of Ched Evans.

 

How can a football club do things like community activism, do good work outside the actual football (and a lot of them do) if people can point at them and say "look at the sort of person you employ"?

 

i'm not getting into it, it's been done before so there's no point

[Dave]

Brummie.

 

Just copying me mind.

[mrmojorisin75]

i assume the review referred to here has not been knocked back yet and is still pending?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29679563

[Skeletor]

Death threats? Oldham sponsored by Mike Ashley's Sports Direct?

 

width=400http://mediaserver.dwpub.com/news/29645/16+April+Keith+Bishop.jpg[/img]

 

Keith Bishop killed Tupac.

[Hanshithispantz]

But that's the important point. He's a convicted rapist. End of.

 

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area.

[mozy]

 

Oldham have received death threats - SSN. Can't imagine anyone going for him - just not worth the hassle.

 

The fuck? So murder is now seen as morally more acceptable than rape.

 

In the common consciousness I think that actually is the case tbh.

 

Definitely.

 

I think it all depends on context, personally. This case is really not comparable to (or worse than) murder.

 

I wasn't in court so I don't know. We didn't get all the evidence obvs. I'm talking generally.

 

In general terms I might agree with you. But this is off topic anyway.

[brummie]

i assume the review referred to here has not been knocked back yet and is still pending?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29679563

 

It hasn't finished yet, no. Although I'm not really sure what difference it makes, given that we don't know what it'll say.

[brummie]

But that's the important point. He's a convicted rapist. End of.

 

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area.

 

There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison.

 

That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted.

 

Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team.

[Hanshithispantz]

But that's the important point. He's a convicted rapist. End of.

 

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area.

 

It's not mental. At some point you have to have a bottom line in order to make a decision about what action to take. His conviction was 'safe' as evidenced by the Court of Appeal Judgment.

 

As a point of public principle you have to recognise the findings of a Jury of lay people.

I think it is mental though, it's effectively giving yourself no leeway in terms of how you feel about a conviction. He was found guilty, that must mean he is guilty.

 

Nah, he was found guilty, but I cannot be 100% sure he was and I'm not going to treat it with 100% certainty he was.

[mozy]

I just find it strange how this case specifically has garnered so much public attention.

 

Especially when utterly terrible human beings such as Marlon King and Nile Ranger have been able to secure multiple contracts without so much as a muttering from the back pages from The Mirror. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people harping on about Evans haven't even heard of these 2. It just strikes me as a bit of a witchunt.

[mrmojorisin75]

i assume the review referred to here has not been knocked back yet and is still pending?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29679563

 

It hasn't finished yet, no. Although I'm not really sure what difference it makes, given that we don't know what it'll say.

 

no difference to this, i was just wondering

[Hanshithispantz]

But that's the important point. He's a convicted rapist. End of.

 

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area.

 

There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison.

 

That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted.

 

Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team.

It is a grey area though as rape, in this way, isn't exactly a single identifiable action. It's not like being caught on CCTV walking into ASDA and walking out with a tele. There's a lot more to it than that.

 

I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just uneasy about saying he's 100% guilty because that's the verdict that was given.

[brummie]

But that's the important point. He's a convicted rapist. End of.

 

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area.

 

There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison.

 

That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted.

 

Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team.

It is a grey area though as rape, in this way, isn't exactly a single identifiable action. It's not like being caught on CCTV walking into ASDA and walking out with a TV. There's a lot more to it than that.

 

I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just uneasy about saying he's 100% guilty because that's the verdict that was given.

 

The important point is that - by the definition of rape enshrined in the law - what Evans committed was rape.

 

If people want to suspect he might not be guilty - and one assumes these people have read all the court proceedings and know all the details about the case in order to be able to make that decision - then that is up to him, but to suggest there is some sort of grey area around his conviction is blatantly not true.

 

Thinking that something (ie what Evans did) isn't as bad as the law sees it is one thing, but to suggest there's any legal lack of clarity is fundamentally untrue.

[Wullie]

Oldham have received death threats - SSN. Can't imagine anyone going for him - just not worth the hassle.

 

The fuck? So murder is now seen as morally more acceptable than rape.

 

In the common consciousness I think that actually is the case tbh.

 

Definitely.

 

I think it all depends on context, personally. This case is really not comparable to (or worse than) murder.

 

Absolutely, I wasn't commenting on this case particularly but culturally, rape is now the ultimate crime. Murder is the stuff of gentle ITV Sunday afternoon drama whilst even post-watershed rape scenes attract huge numbers of complaints. A football pundit can freely use "murdered" to describe a game but if he uses "raped", he's finished.

 

There's also this idea in the public consciousness and the media that rape is rape and that no rape is less serious than any other. That idea is so stupid I can barely comprehend it but that's why Evans is such a pariah. A few public figures who've attempted to disagree with that idea recently have either been forced to apologise or gotten threats.

 

It's fucking weird like. I don't even know who these people are that abhor rape but will quite happily threaten rape on someone that says something they don't like.

[ujpest doza]

I just find it strange how this case specifically has garnered so much public attention.

 

Especially when utterly terrible human beings such as Marlon King and Nile Ranger have been able to secure multiple contracts without so much as a muttering from the back pages from The Mirror. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people harping on about Evans haven't even heard of these 2. It just strikes me as a bit of a witchunt.

I don't recall as much outcry when Graeme Rix was released and sought football employment mind.

 

[mrmojorisin75]

But that's the important point. He's a convicted rapist. End of.

 

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area.

 

There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison.

 

That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted.

 

Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team.

It is a grey area though as rape, in this way, isn't exactly a single identifiable action. It's not like being caught on CCTV walking into ASDA and walking out with a tele. There's a lot more to it than that.

 

I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just uneasy about saying he's 100% guilty because that's the verdict that was given.

 

unless evan's people are responsible for making up loads of shit that didn't happen and spinning it as the truth without anyone taking them to task for it there's a lot to question about the conviction imho - in effect he's gone down because a jury, heavily influenced by the judge at the time iirc, have decided that the lass was too drunk to consent, not that she didn't consent mind you...in fact the porter fella heard her actively participating in the act (again iirc)

 

so unless i'm missing something he wasn't sent down on hard evidence at all, the lass said she can't remember, no-one can prove otherwise and a subjective decision has been made to say he raped her when witness testimony suggests it wasn't forced and was indeed consented to at the time

 

if there's nothing grey about that then jesus

 

all of this is said with the proviso there may be evidence i've not read or heard about etc.

[Hanshithispantz]

But that's the important point. He's a convicted rapist. End of.

 

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area.

 

There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison.

 

That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted.

 

Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team.

It is a grey area though as rape, in this way, isn't exactly a single identifiable action. It's not like being caught on CCTV walking into ASDA and walking out with a TV. There's a lot more to it than that.

 

I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just uneasy about saying he's 100% guilty because that's the verdict that was given.

 

The important point is that - by the definition of rape enshrined in the law - what Evans committed was rape.

 

If people want to suspect he might not be guilty - and one assumes these people have read all the court proceedings and know all the details about the case in order to be able to make that decision - then that is up to him, but to suggest there is some sort of grey area around his conviction is blatantly not true.

 

Thinking that something (ie what Evans did) isn't as bad as the law sees it is one thing, but to suggest there's any legal lack of clarity is fundamentally untrue.

Really?

 

In sentencing him to five years in prison the judge said: "The complainant was 19 years of age and was extremely intoxicated.

 

"CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend.

 

"As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse.

 

"When you arrived at the hotel, you must have realised that."

[mrmojorisin75]

There's also this idea in the public consciousness and the media that rape is rape and that no rape is less serious than any other. That idea is so stupid I can barely comprehend it but that's why Evans is such a pariah. A few public figures who've attempted to disagree with that idea recently have either been forced to apologise or gotten threats.

 

It's fucking weird like. I don't even know who these people are that abhor rape but will quite happily threaten rape on someone that says something they don't like.

 

[brummie]

There's also this idea in the public consciousness and the media that rape is rape and that no rape is less serious than any other. That idea is so stupid I can barely comprehend it but that's why Evans is such a pariah. A few public figures who've attempted to disagree with that idea recently have either been forced to apologise or gotten threats.

 

I think there are two arguments here. Of course some rapes are "worse" than others, but it wasn't that that caused the ruckus when whoever it was (I can't remember) (remembered - Judy Finnigan). It was the implication that that meant that there was some forms of rape which "aren't really too bad".

 

That's the dodgy ground.

 

Rape is a hideous crime, whichever format it takes. In that sense, rape is rape, the media are correct on that.

[brummie]

But that's the important point. He's a convicted rapist. End of.

 

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area.

 

There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison.

 

That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted.

 

Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team.

It is a grey area though as rape, in this way, isn't exactly a single identifiable action. It's not like being caught on CCTV walking into ASDA and walking out with a TV. There's a lot more to it than that.

 

I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just uneasy about saying he's 100% guilty because that's the verdict that was given.

 

The important point is that - by the definition of rape enshrined in the law - what Evans committed was rape.

 

If people want to suspect he might not be guilty - and one assumes these people have read all the court proceedings and know all the details about the case in order to be able to make that decision - then that is up to him, but to suggest there is some sort of grey area around his conviction is blatantly not true.

 

Thinking that something (ie what Evans did) isn't as bad as the law sees it is one thing, but to suggest there's any legal lack of clarity is fundamentally untrue.

Really?

 

In sentencing him to five years in prison the judge said: "The complainant was 19 years of age and was extremely intoxicated.

 

"CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend.

 

"As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse.

 

"When you arrived at the hotel, you must have realised that."

 

What on earth do you mean by that?

 

He's a judge sitting in a court of law, expressing how he saw Evans' actions in the frame of what the law is. That's his job. The jury were expressing their interpretation of how what Evans did should be interpreted.

 

That's why Evans was found guilty.

 

if you are going to cast doubt on the outcome of  a trial because it involves a judge's "interpretation" of the law, then you're going to find yourself at odds with the entire legal framework which lies at the root of modern democracy.