Ched Evans - Not Guilty

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Wullie]

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.

 

Plenty of companies won't hire a convicted rapist though, or even a convicted criminal. If a particular football club wants to sign him, that's their decision. But if nobody wants to, he'll have to find a cleaning job somewhere. That's life.

[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 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

[AyeDubbleYoo]

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.

 

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.

[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.

 

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.

That's not my point though. I'm not suggesting he poses a risk to his immediate surroundings or the persons he works with. For me it's a matter of principle. A convicted sex offender shouldn't, by way of his footballing talents, be granted a status as a role model. Which he undoubtedly will be whether we like it or not.

[Guest firetotheworks]

I feel like I need to know more about it to make a better decision but as it stands I'd leave it to each club to decide (obviously taking it as a flimsy given that they definitely want him for his football ability)

[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.

 

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.

 

Fair enough view, like I said it's pretty hard to compare crimes. I'm just always aware of the potentially long chain of crimes and victims that leads a drug to be on sale on the streets of the UK.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I feel like I need to know more about it to make a better decision but as it stands I'd leave it to each club to decide (obviously taking it as a flimsy given that they definitely want him for his football ability)

 

But assuming he's guilty, what would you say?

 

Debating whether or not you believe he did is a completely different discussion really. He's a convicted rapist.

[Dave]

Drug dealers presumably get longer than rapists because the crown can't bear the thought of someone making money they don't get a cut of.

 

j/k

[Dave]

Do they? Missing a trick there.

[Hanshithispantz]

Drug dealers tend to just be normal blokes where as a full on rapist (philanthropist) are obviously genuinely sick in the head. It doesn't make any sense like, I assume the idea behind it is to do with prevention more than anything else though?

[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.

 

Really? i think it's absolutely insane that drug dealers get longer than rapists. Completely obscene. 

 

Well like I said it's hard to compare.

 

Bloke down the street who deals some weed he grew in his attic, fair enough.

 

But just a coupe of quick examples... someone who peddles heroin which absolutely destroys the life of anyone it touches, the people the addicts victimise to get money, their friends and family etc. Or someone who's involved a chain of violent and organised crime to get cocaine from South America to the UK. Involving women being forced to be mules, rivals killed, young people sucked into the industry, addicts having their lives ruined in their droves.

 

Obviously you can equally think of awful sex crimes, I guess I just mean that drug dealing can also be incredibly harmful and the discussions not clear cut.