Ched Evans - Not Guilty

[Parky]

Needs to be allowed to get on with his life. He's made a mistake and he's paid for it and will for the rest of his time in the public arena. That is punishment enough. The rest is all media film flam and the narrative will move on in a few months.

[Raconteur]

In the OP Dave asked "Should football take him back?"

 

In black and white, the answer has to be yes - the whole "done his time" bullshit principle has to stand.

 

However, the poll question "Should Sheffield United (or any other club) take him back?" is a different question altogether. He's contracted to Sheffield United, so they have to make a decision - and like we did with Nile Ranger, Joey Barton and Lee Bowyer (amongst others), the question isn't a moral one anymore. These days it's a financial decision, the result of a cost-benefit analysis.

 

Is having Ched Evans scoring goals for the Blades worth the negative impact on the brand, the potential alienation of female fans, potential dressing-room issues? It brings into question wyn davies' post about denying the right to work. If Sheffield United cancelled his contract but held onto his registration (to prevent him from being signed by a rival) then Evans might have grounds to sue, but I'd back a lawyer to successfully argue that Sheffield United's action was legal.

 

If he was free to sign for someone else, then those clubs would have to make the same cost benefit analysis - except Evans would be in a weaker negotiating position, which would mean more clubs could afford him, and the lower down the pyramid he goes then the more chance he would be worth the negative impact on the brand, the potential alienation of female fans, potential dressing-room issues. So (for example) while NUFC would be in the luxurious position of saying "no" without much thought, Darlington or Gateshead might have a tougher decision to make...

 

Morally, a whole different question again - and it seems that many here are discussing the moral principles as opposed to the two questions posed by the OP.

[mickthemagpie]

This idea that other professions would welcome back a convicted rapist is bollocks. If he wants a job let him sweep the streets.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Vaguely remember seeing a poster on the metro that said something along the lines of 'if you have sex with someone who is drunk then they cannot give consent'

 

I'd have to look back at it but that concept is terrifying.

[Ally]

The prick should be locked up for life for what he did, he is lower than scum, how anyone drunk or otherwise could get enjoyment from fucking basically a sleeping person is betond me. I hope the cunt breaks both his legs and neck!

 

Can I just point out that there is absolutely no evidence that either bloke had sex with her while she was sleeping or unconscious, in fact there is evidence that this was not the case (from the night porter who was listening outside the room). Nor is there any suggestion that the sex was actively against her will. The only question was whether or not she was so pissed that she was incapable of giving consent.

 

An expert witness at the trial estimated from the amount that she drank throughout the night, that at the time of the incident she would have been about 2½ times over the drink drive limit, (which I believe for the average woman would be the equivalent to the state they'd be in after drinking around 3 large wines). Apparently she was capable of texting her mates, capable of buying a pizza with the correct change, capable of picking up the bloke and inviting herself to his hotel, capable of remembering she'd left her pizza outside and nipping out for it (while being supposedly barely capable of standing), but subsequently - without having anything more to drink - incapable of offering consent.

 

I can only hope that noone on here has ever had casual sex with a woman who has had any more than a couple of glasses of wine, otherwise I guess they too should be considered rapists if the woman subsequently can't remember what happened. I also hope the police are actively pursuing any other men this woman may have slept with on other occasions where she would "normally and regularly drink well in excess of what she had consumed on this particular night out."

 

Having researched it this is my take too.

 

I said something similar on Facebook and soon abandoned ship as women went mad saying "rape is rape" but I think it's clearly different between a man who attacks someone in a dark alley vs drunk "consent"

 

The appeal will be interesting

 

 

[Robster]

in fact there is evidence that this was not the case (from the night porter who was listening outside the room).

It's a very sound argument UV but I would definitely like to know more about how the porter just happened to have his ear to a door trying to listen to people having sex

[Guest firetotheworks]

Brought up what was mentioned in UV's post to a female friend.

 

"So you think it's okay to rape someone?"

 

" What the fuck man! No, I'm questioning whether it was actually rape. That's the whole point"

 

"So you're defending rape?"

 

"Am gan home"

[Ally]

Exactly what happened to me. "What if it was your daughter?" etc

[Paully]

 

The prick should be locked up for life for what he did, he is lower than scum, how anyone drunk or otherwise could get enjoyment from f***ing basically a sleeping person is betond me. I hope the c*** breaks both his legs and neck!

 

Can I just point out that there is absolutely no evidence that either bloke had sex with her while she was sleeping or unconscious, in fact there is evidence that this was not the case (from the night porter who was listening outside the room). Nor is there any suggestion that the sex was actively against her will. The only question was whether or not she was so p*ssed that she was incapable of giving consent.

 

An expert witness at the trial estimated from the amount that she drank throughout the night, that at the time of the incident she would have been about 2½ times over the drink drive limit, (which I believe for the average woman would be the equivalent to the state they'd be in after drinking around 3 large wines). Apparently she was capable of texting her mates, capable of buying a pizza with the correct change, capable of picking up the bloke and inviting herself to his hotel, capable of remembering she'd left her pizza outside and nipping out for it (while being supposedly barely capable of standing), but subsequently - without having anything more to drink - incapable of offering consent.

 

I can only hope that noone on here has ever had casual sex with a woman who has had any more than a couple of glasses of wine, otherwise I guess they too should be considered rapists if the woman subsequently can't remember what happened. I also hope the police are actively pursuing any other men this woman may have slept with on other occasions where she would "normally and regularly drink well in excess of what she had consumed on this particular night out."

 

Magnificent post that! I've read quite a bit about the case and this post sums up my thoughts perfectly!

[koven]

The prick should be locked up for life for what he did, he is lower than scum, how anyone drunk or otherwise could get enjoyment from fucking basically a sleeping person is betond me. I hope the cunt breaks both his legs and neck!

 

An expert witness at the trial estimated from the amount that she drank throughout the night, that at the time of the incident she would have been about 2½ times over the drink drive limit, (which I believe for the average woman would be the equivalent to the state they'd be in after drinking around 3 large wines). Apparently she was capable of texting her mates, capable of buying a pizza with the correct change, capable of picking up the bloke and inviting herself to his hotel, capable of remembering she'd left her pizza outside and nipping out for it (while being supposedly barely capable of standing), but subsequently - without having anything more to drink - incapable of offering consent.

 

 

Devil's advocate:

 

The owner of the kebab shop described her as being drunk and unbalanced. The CCTV footage ... showed that while she was inside the kebab shop she was unsteady on her feet. At one point she fell over and landed on the floor. On the other hand, outside the kebab shop she could be seen eating pizza from a large box, although she was also seen to stumble, squat, lose her balance, and walk unsteadily. Indeed, she left her handbag in the shop.

 

The night porter (Mr Burrough) described her as "extremely drunk".

 

After about half an hour McDonald left the hotel via the reception. He had a brief word with the night porter, telling him that he should look out for the girl in room 14 (the room in question) because she was sick.

 

Her next memory was waking up in the hotel room at about 11.30am. She realised that she was alone. She was naked and had urinated in the bed.

[mozy]

The whole question of this trail boils down to the word 'rape' and the sentence attached to it. 'Rape' in my eyes refers to a despicable, predatory, violent crime that is explicitly against the wishes of the victim. No consent given at all.

 

In her inebriated condition, over quite a considerable period of time, the girl was happy to get in the taxi with McDonald, go back to the hotel, have sex with him and then give consent to have sex with Evans too.

 

From the perspective of Evans and McDonald they have not sexually assaulted a girl against her wishes and from their statements she was more than keen at the time. Personally I don't think you can put this on the same level as a violent street rape, which is what Evans will see in his mind every time he reads the headline 'Convicted Rapist Ched Evans'.

 

Interesting case really. Like others have said, fairly eye opening.

[Anderson]

He's contracted to Sheffield United, so they have to make a decision - and like we did with Nile Ranger, Joey Barton and Lee Bowyer (amongst others), the question isn't a moral one anymore. These days it's a financial decision, the result of a cost-benefit analysis.

 

Is he? Never knew that.

[Greg]

He's contracted to Sheffield United, so they have to make a decision - and like we did with Nile Ranger, Joey Barton and Lee Bowyer (amongst others), the question isn't a moral one anymore. These days it's a financial decision, the result of a cost-benefit analysis.

 

Is he? Never knew that.

 

Because it isn't true.

[Wullie]

Pretty sure he's not like.

[Mick]

I'm glad this has nothing to do with NUFC, I would hate the idea of him playing for us.  The thought of cheering anything he did is almost puke inducing as is the thought of him receiving massive sums of money.  I'm all for offenders being given the chance to rehabilitate but the though of him potentially being idolised by some just doesn't sit well with me.

[Big Geordie]

I'm glad this has nothing to do with NUFC, I would hate the idea of him playing for us.  The thought of cheering anything he did is almost puke inducing as is the thought of him receiving massive sums of money.  I'm all for offenders being given the chance to rehabilitate but the though of him potentially being idolised by some just doesn't sit well with me.

 

Again - seconded. Glad its nothing to do with us, and we can just watch from the sidelines.

[Dave]

I'm glad this has nothing to do with NUFC, I would hate the idea of him playing for us.  The thought of cheering anything he did is almost puke inducing as is the thought of him receiving massive sums of money.  I'm all for offenders being given the chance to rehabilitate but the though of him potentially being idolised by some just doesn't sit well with me.

 

Again - seconded. Glad its nothing to do with us, and we can just watch from the sidelines.

 

Tempting fate massively here.

[sixx]

I'm glad this has nothing to do with NUFC, I would hate the idea of him playing for us.  The thought of cheering anything he did is almost puke inducing as is the thought of him receiving massive sums of money.  I'm all for offenders being given the chance to rehabilitate but the though of him potentially being idolised by some just doesn't sit well with me.

 

Exactly my point. Sums up the whole thing on my part.

[Big Geordie]

I'm glad this has nothing to do with NUFC, I would hate the idea of him playing for us.  The thought of cheering anything he did is almost puke inducing as is the thought of him receiving massive sums of money.  I'm all for offenders being given the chance to rehabilitate but the though of him potentially being idolised by some just doesn't sit well with me.

 

Again - seconded. Glad its nothing to do with us, and we can just watch from the sidelines.

 

Tempting fate massively here.

 

We've been through enough of this crap before. I remember Bowyer, Dyer and Bramble being involved in similar business and that's not to mention Barton and Ranger dragging the club's name through the dirt.

[Shush]

Would bet anything on there being chants of "he shags who he wants" if he starts playing again

 

Assuming they are drunk enough.

[Guest firetotheworks]

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

 

Worth a read.

[Guest firetotheworks]

I have to say that the guilty verdict looks really dodgy to me.

 

There's an expert witness that has said that "Evidence of memory loss as a result of anterior-grade amnesia does not in itself prove that she lacked the capacity to consent."

 

Another witness has said that she had been talking about other times that she had been drunk and forgot things. The toxicology report showed nothing but alcohol and cocaine and cannabis, from an earlier time, so there's no evidence of a rape drug being used or anything.

 

The case was built on being in a position to be able to make the choice for consent in the first place. As in, whether she said yes or no, whether she was too drunk to make that decision.

 

That to me is slightly worrying. Who hasn't had sex with someone when you or the person you're with has been really drunk? It's ingrained into our drinking culture and it irks me slightly thinking that that (on both sides) could be construed as rape. I've woken up and not remembered the night before (although not the entirety), but I wouldn't automatically assume foul-play if I didn't. It's very dodgy ground imo. It's definitely not a 'that's definitely rape' situation and it's weird because I feel like there's a stigma in even talking about it openly without being made to feel like you're defending rape or condoning something, when I'm clearly not.

[BlueStar]

That "got a bird" text sits pretty badly with me tbh

 

Plus this bit goes against this idea she was fine because she walked into the hotel

 

The CCTV footage showed that while she was inside the kebab shop she was unsteady on her feet, at one point she fell over and landed on the floor. On the other hand, outside the kebab shop she could be seen eating pizza from a large box, although she was also seen to stumble, squat, lose her balance, and walk unsteadily. Indeed, she left her handbag in the shop. Based on this evidence, the prosecution case was that she was very drunk.

[Guest firetotheworks]

The other element of fresh evidence was expert evidence prepared by Professor John Birch, a consultant pharmacologist, a professor of biomedical science. His specialist field is psycho-pharmacology. Towards the end of his report he says:

 

"From the evidence of [the complainant] she appears to have suffered anterior-grade amnesia as a result of the high dose of alcohol which she consumed, and in particular that she consumed a substantial dose of alcohol during the last hour or so prior to leaving the nightclub. It appears from the evidence that her short-term memory was functioning at the time around the incident, but that the long-term record of that memory has been ablated by the high concentration of alcohol. There is, therefore, no memory record of those events and attempts to jog the memory may lead to confabulation. The fact that she has no memory of events does not mean that she was not able to participate in a meaningful way in events at that time, and I am quite clear that this includes the ability to make informed decisions in relation to consent. Acute alcohol intoxication may lead to substantial disinhibition and that may in itself lead to unwise judgments being made. But the fact that she does no longer remember having made a decision is a failure of the memory process and not of the decision-making process. Evidence of memory loss as a result of anterior-grade amnesia does not in itself prove that she lacked the capacity to consent."

 

Then there's this.

 

A criticism of the summing-up involves an analysis of the directions given to the jury about the issue of consent in the context of the consumption of alcohol and/or drugs. The written submissions also criticised selected passages in the summing-up. There were two broad complaints. Firstly, that nowhere in the summing-up was it made clear to the jury that, even if the complainant was drunk, it did not necessarily mean that she had not consented; "a drunken consent is still a consent".

 

 

I still don't understand how he would be found guilty and his mate didn't. His mate did more imo...

[Guest firetotheworks]

Definitely. It's quite difficult to imagine anyone texting that for any other reason, BUT that in itself doesn't mean that they raped her, it's also noted that the text was 'got a bird" or words to that effect.'

 

Still seems suspicious.