Ched Evans - Not Guilty

[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?

 

"serving the time in prison dictated by the British justice system"

 

Offenders always complete their full sentence but usually half the time is spent in prison and the rest is spent on licence. While on licence, an offender can be sent back to prison if they break its terms.

 

The system of serving half a sentence in prison and half on licence was introduced by Parliament, and is not something that judges or magistrates have any control over.

 

So his full sentence hasn't finished, you didn't say prison. His time is still ongoing until the licence stops.

Why is that relevant in this case specifically though? It's not like he fucking escaped or got out on a technicality, he served every day inside he was told to and is presumably doing as he's supposed to now he's out.

 

Wasnt my point mate. I merely contested the fact he's not served his time. He's done his bit in prison yeah, he hasn't finished his sentence, he can't even go abroad can he?

Fair enough

[mozy]

 

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.

[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.

[mozy]

 

 

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.

 

no one is saying that. Did you listen to all the testimony then? I think they probably made their decision based on all the evidence presented to them.

 

Yes, but I don't think there's anything that they would have heard that we don't know. If there was, it would be all over that cringeworthy Support Ched website and in the media.

 

If your point is simply how witnesses came across in court etc then fair enough, but should that be enough to convict someone?

[ads]

I'm genuinely baffled that people seem to think he may be innocent, just because he himself hasn't admitted to it. Unless any of us have seen or heard the evidence in court, surely we need to just trust the guy was convicted by judge and jury and so is a convicted rapist.

 

Seriously, what am I missing?

[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.

[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.

 

no one is saying that. Did you listen to all the testimony then? I think they probably made their decision based on all the evidence presented to them.

 

Yes, but I don't think there's anything that they would have heard that we don't know. If there was, it would be all over that cringeworthy Support Ched website and in the media.

 

If your point is simply how witnesses came across in court etc then fair enough, but should that be enough to convict someone?

Don't know how many times it needs saying like:

 

The lass claims no recollection whatsoever, and therefore can't say what happened either way

 

There was no physical evidence

 

The night porter backed his and McDonald's statement that she consented willingly

 

The only evidence against him really is his own statement that he had consensual sex with her

 

The jury, seemingly heavily influenced by the judge and against expert testimony have made an entirely subjective and arbitrary decision based on CCTV footage and the lass saying she can't remember to convict the lad of rape based on her not being able to consent, which literally can not be proven beyond doubt

 

He might be an absolute fucking knobhead but he should not have gone down

[Cunning_Linguist]

I am loving seeing peoples different views on this, Really seems to be quite an equal divide amongst people in general, and it shows here as well.

 

My Personal Opinion based on the case which, lets face it, are very sketchy and a little Dubious is that I think he should be allowed to play football again.

 

If he was a Plumber and this happened, I am pretty sure people would not give a flying F**k about whether he worked as a plumber or not again BUT if he did, This is a job where he would be going in to peoples HOMES, and lets face it, Do people check Court Records every time they call a plumber out to see if they are on the Sex offenders register? I think not. For me it would be more dangerous in that situation.

 

After everything that has happened, Ched Evans will be a watched, and marked man and he will have to be very careful with how he carries on in his personal life as people could target him for more of the same, a la Ken Barlow, Kevin Webster......

 

I got thinking more about this and decided to do a quick web search and found this Wikipedia which lists footballers (and other sports stars) who have been in prison etc. Quite a few famous names on there some of which are still playing football now. There are even some players whose names are not on the list (Lee Bowyer, Jon Woodgate, Stan Collymore and Adrian Mutu ). I know Ched Evans Case is a bit different to the majority on that list, which is mainly assault and drink driving, but never the less, are they an example to kids etc and should they have remained in the spotlight? Especially as there are a couple of killers in there???

[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.

[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.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I am loving seeing peoples different views on this, Really seems to be quite an equal divide amongst people in general, and it shows here as well.

 

My Personal Opinion based on the case which, lets face it, are very sketchy and a little Dubious is that I think he should be allowed to play football again.

 

If he was a Plumber and this happened, I am pretty sure people would not give a flying F**k about whether he worked as a plumber or not again BUT if he did, This is a job where he would be going in to peoples HOMES, and lets face it, Do people check Court Records every time they call a plumber out to see if they are on the Sex offenders register? I think not. For me it would be more dangerous in that situation.

 

After everything that has happened, Ched Evans will be a watched, and marked man and he will have to be very careful with how he carries on in his personal life as people could target him for more of the same, a la Ken Barlow, Kevin Webster......

 

I got thinking more about this and decided to do a quick web search and found this Wikipedia which lists footballers (and other sports stars) who have been in prison etc. Quite a few famous names on there some of which are still playing football now. There are even some players whose names are not on the list (Lee Bowyer, Jon Woodgate, Stan Collymore and Adrian Mutu ). I know Ched Evans Case is a bit different to the majority on that list, which is mainly assault and drink driving, but never the less, are they an example to kids etc and should they have remained in the spotlight? Especially as there are a couple of killers in there???

 

Agree with you pretty much completely here.

 

TBH you could argue that it's better for parents to explain to their children that people can make mistakes, do bad things, and still be able to be rehabilitated. If I had kids I would be at least trying that line I think.

[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.

[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.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

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.

[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.