Ched Evans (Again)

[Marina's Rolls Royce]

I wasn't present at his trial so have no idea of the ins and outs of the case, but I'm definitely in the "he's done his time and should be allowed to get on with his life" camp.

 

Really? I think you'll find the "ins and outs" was the case.

[MarcusX]

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

As Red-Robbo has said, I wouldn't have liked ro make a judgement on this, it all seems to hinge on the girls ability to consent and I am not sure how anyone in the court can decide that, especially seeing as the morning after alcohol tests were not showing a high level.

That said, impossible to make judgement without sitting through it all and even then it must be a tough decision making process. I can understand why he has shown no remorse, if he feels that he had consent.

I am not going to judge him on his morals.

This is more or less my point, in perhaps a less controversial form.

I think what people are ignoring is it's fact that this girl had no prior contact with Evans or McDonald during the night. She literally bumped into McDonald whilst waiting for a taxi, got into the taxi with him to his hotel room and then had sex with him - supposedly 10-15 minutes after arriving at the hotel, Evans then showed up. (That's fact as well, it wasn't hours later)

I am not saying this girl asked for it, but I don't believe she didn't consent then regret her actions the next morning...

The argument seems to be that she was in no state to consent. None of us had sex with a drunk girl then? If she says yes, she says yes - she can't suddenly change her mind the next morning when she sobers up!

[CotswoldRed]

These theories.... if only the court has considered them!

I'm sure weeks in court with expert witnesses and the like will give a better appraisal than a few footy fans on a forum.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

This is more or less my point, in perhaps a less controversial form.

I think what people are ignoring is it's fact that this girl had no prior contact with Evans or McDonald during the night. She literally bumped into McDonald whilst waiting for a taxi, got into the taxi with him to his hotel room and then had sex with him - supposedly 10-15 minutes after arriving at the hotel, Evans then showed up. (That's fact as well, it wasn't hours later)

I am not saying this girl asked for it, but I don't believe she didn't consent then regret her actions the next morning...

The argument seems to be that she was in no state to consent. None of us had sex with a drunk girl then? If she says yes, she says yes - she can't suddenly change her mind the next morning when she sobers up!

 

You peppered in one fact and then loads of speculation and then one big guess.

 

As for your last sentence my personal answer would be no, but if this sort of judgement makes other men stop and think something good will have come from it.

[Loco Rojo]

These few pages just go to prove how disgracful a subject this is and provokes a fair few differing opinions.

Point is though, that this is something that Shefield United could and should have steered well clear of and represent a sport football should be about but instead have become just another example of what football is sadly becoming.

I for one would be embarressed to be a Shefiled United fan after this announcement and would seriously question my support going forward.

[LondonBristolian]

This is more or less my point, in perhaps a less controversial form.

I think what people are ignoring is it's fact that this girl had no prior contact with Evans or McDonald during the night. She literally bumped into McDonald whilst waiting for a taxi, got into the taxi with him to his hotel room and then had sex with him - supposedly 10-15 minutes after arriving at the hotel, Evans then showed up. (That's fact as well, it wasn't hours later)

I am not saying this girl asked for it, but I don't believe she didn't consent then regret her actions the next morning...

The argument seems to be that she was in no state to consent. None of us had sex with a drunk girl then? If she says yes, she says yes - she can't suddenly change her mind the next morning when she sobers up!

 

As far as I'm aware, neither side of the case contests the fact she cannot actually remember what happened.  So it's not a case of her regretting her consent - she simply has no memory of having sex.  Which must be terrifying.

 

In terms of your next question, yes I've had sex with someone who's drunk. But I've also been in a situation where I've encountered interest from somebody who quite clearly - whilst conscious and talking - is not in control of their actions and in a fit state to make a decision on whether they're able to consent or not.  I've not had sex with them because it was pretty obvious that it would have been the wrong ting to do.  There's a world of difference between these two things.

 

It's all very well you saying "if she says yes, she says yes.  She can't change her mind in the morning when she sobers up"  But the simple fact is, as Dollymarie points out, the law disagrees with you there.  Sex with somebody who is not in a fit state to be able to consent is rape.  That's not me saying that because it happens to be my opinion.  It's simply a statement of what the law is.

[bs3]

There are quite a few professions for which Ched Evans would be barred, even though he has served his sentence.  Serving your sentence does not necessarily mean that the slate is wiped clean for employment purposes.  The question is whether being a professional sportsperson is one of these.

 

 

 

I agree. In my job I have to be vetted and if I was a convicted rapist I would be able to  work in my chosen industry.

[LondonBristolian]

Its not black and white though is it, surely it all came down to opinion, was she in a state to consent or not and without being in the room at the time, no one can 100% judge that either way.

 

Saying it is "down to opinion" dismisses the fact that the jury sifted through vast amounts of evidence (including, of course, contradictory statements from the two men accused that suggested at least one of them was not telling the truth as well as expert opinion, video evidence, forensic evidence etc.)  Yes - technically the jury formed an 'opinion' on his guilt but it was a unanimous one and certainly not one derived from random guesswork.  The jury felt Evans' guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt and two appeals to date have failed because evidence from the case suggests the jury was directed appropriately by the jury and then approached the evidence in such a way that made that verdict of guilty beyond reasonable doubt a valid verdict to reach.  

 

I find it a bit bizarre that people who weren't there and who I imagine have been through the evidence of the case in significantly less than the jury are now trying to find reasonable doubt where an impartial jury and two appeal judges who are all far more acquainted with the case have failed to find any.  Remember that, in a rape trial, the very nature of the burden of proof being "beyond all reasonable doubt" tends to favour the defendant due to how hard rape is to prove.  The fact that a prosecutor successfully proved Evans to have committed rape shows there was a significantly higher threshold of evidence than you are giving credit.

[LondonBristolian]

I agree. In my job I have to be vetted and if I was a convicted rapist I would be able to  work in my chosen industry.

 

You must be a professional footballer!

[Vincent Vega]

You must be a professional footballer!

It does beg the question what other company would re-employ a convicted rapist..?

[Maesknoll Red]

Saying it is "down to opinion" dismisses the fact that the jury sifted through vast amounts of evidence (including, of course, contradictory statements from the two men accused that suggested at least one of them was not telling the truth as well as expert opinion, video evidence, forensic evidence etc.)  Yes - technically the jury formed an 'opinion' on his guilt but it was a unanimous one and certainly not one derived from random guesswork.  The jury felt Evans' guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt and two appeals to date have failed because evidence from the case suggests the jury was directed appropriately by the jury and then approached the evidence in such a way that made that verdict of guilty beyond reasonable doubt a valid verdict to reach.  

 

I find it a bit bizarre that people who weren't there and who I imagine have been through the evidence of the case in significantly less than the jury are now trying to find reasonable doubt where an impartial jury and two appeal judges who are all far more acquainted with the case have failed to find any.  Remember that, in a rape trial, the very nature of the burden of proof being "beyond all reasonable doubt" tends to favour the defendant due to how hard rape is to prove.  The fact that a prosecutor successfully proved Evans to have committed rape shows there was a significantly higher threshold of evidence than you are giving credit.

I'm doing nothing other than keeping an open mind. Maybe he is a lying scumbag who is trying to clear his name at any cost, maybe he genuinely feels that the girl gave her consent at the time and he feels his name should be cleared because he did nothing illegal. Like i said before, the morals of what he did aren't for me to judge.

[CotswoldRed]

I'm doing nothing other than keeping an open mind. Maybe he is a lying scumbag who is trying to clear his name at any cost, maybe he genuinely feels that the girl gave her consent at the time and he feels his name should be cleared because he did nothing illegal. Like i said before, the morals of what he did aren't for me to judge.

But why the need to keep an open mind?

Would you keep an open mind about a convicted paedophile living up the road?

[Cambridge Batch Red]

I'm doing nothing other than keeping an open mind. Maybe he is a lying scumbag who is trying to clear his name at any cost, maybe he genuinely feels that the girl gave her consent at the time and he feels his name should be cleared because he did nothing illegal. Like i said before, the morals of what he did aren't for me to judge.

I don't think the fact that his mates filmed it as well help his assertions that she consented. It's a sordid affair, I can't believe he is training with the squad now, I thought he would still be not on normal communal exercise. 

[Maesknoll Red]

But why the need to keep an open mind?

Would you keep an open mind about a convicted paedophile living up the road?

Depends on the circumstances.

[LondonBristolian]

I'm doing nothing other than keeping an open mind. Maybe he is a lying scumbag who is trying to clear his name at any cost, maybe he genuinely feels that the girl gave her consent at the time and he feels his name should be cleared because he did nothing illegal. Like i said before, the morals of what he did aren't for me to judge.

 

That's perfectly fine as long as you keep an "open mind" with all convicted criminals.  If you feel it's impossible to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" in any cases and that, say, Ian Huntley, Gary Glitter, Jeremy Bamber or any other criminal who has protested their innocence might be innocent too then that's a perfectly logical position to take.  Probably a bit confusing and difficult to maintain but consistent.

 

If, however, you believe that other people convicted of crimes are guilty but are keeping an "open mind" on Ched Evans, I'd really want to question why you're choosing to treat him differently than other convicted criminals.  Because I really can't see any reason to do so based on the evidence.  And neither can the jury of 12 people who unanimously convicted him or the appeal judges who upheld the verdicts.

 

People often misuse the phrase "open mind".  If you're withholding judgement until the evidence comes in then that's keeping an open mind.  If you're withholding judgement despite there being ample evidence to make a judgement on, it's not keeping an "open mind" at all - it's actually a closed mind due to a failure to allow your mind to be guided by the material facts .

 

For what it's worth, I see no reason to accuse Ched Evans of lying.  I am quite sure that Ched Evans "genuinely feels the girl gave her consent at the time and he feels his name should be cleared because he did nothing illegal."  It just so happens that, in this case, Ched Evans had sex with a girl who a jury decided was not in a fit state to give informed consent.  And, in the eyes of the law, that is illegal.  If the jury is correct and she was not in a fit state then whether Ched Evans believes he is innocent - and even if he believes the girl consented in a drunken stupor - is irrelevant.  

 

And this is perhaps the crucial lesson that I hope men learn from this case - both for their sake and the sake of women they encounter.  If they do have sex with someone who is extremely drunk to a point where they are not able to give informed consent, and that person subsequently accuses of them of rape, and then a jury decides that in fact that person is too drunk to give informed consent then, in the eyes of the law, that is rape.  And it's not going to be enough to hope for a sympathetic judge who says "there, there, it's okay.  You didn't think you were doing anything wrong" because that isn't going to happen.  Instead they're going to be convicted of rape and be seen as a rapist in the eyes of the law in much the way that any other rapist is when they have sex with someone who has not consented.  

[Nibor]

This debate is pretty tired.

 

A question for those who think he shouldn't be allowed to play football after release:

 

Would you consider it ok for him to have special treatment, say a year off his sentence, because he was a footballer?

 

No, nor me.  I'd expect him to be treated the same as any other profession.  Before and after conviction.

 

Hopefully that will make the inconsistency of the argument that he shouldn't be allowed to pursue a career clear.  

 

As to his guilt or innocence, it's quite simple.  He's guilty, because the people who sat through the trial on the jury and heard the evidence said so.  Nothing else actually matters.

 

I hope we don't sign him because I don't want the controversy associated with my club but that's a different matter entirely.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

This debate is pretty tired.

 

A question for those who think he shouldn't be allowed to play football after release:

 

Would you consider it ok for him to have special treatment, say a year off his sentence, because he was a footballer?

 

No, nor me.  I'd expect him to be treated the same as any other profession.  Before and after conviction.

 

Hopefully that will make the inconsistency of the argument that he shouldn't be allowed to pursue a career clear.  

 

As to his guilt or innocence, it's quite simple.  He's guilty, because the people who sat through the trial on the jury and heard the evidence said so.  Nothing else actually matters.

 

I hope we don't sign him because I don't want the controversy associated with my club but that's a different matter entirely.

 

Totally agree with every word, I have no problem whatsoever with him playing the game professionally once more, but surprised that any UK club would want the shit storm that inevitably come with that decision.

[Maesknoll Red]

No point keeping on covering the same ground, so this will be my last point on this, if he was also drunk and thought he had consent, but in someone else's opinion he didn't, then there could be a lot of similar cases, stretching back many years. It just seems to be a grey area to me, maybe not to you. (London Bristolian).

[LondonBristolian]

This debate is pretty tired.

 

A question for those who think he shouldn't be allowed to play football after release:

 

Would you consider it ok for him to have special treatment, say a year off his sentence, because he was a footballer?

 

No, nor me.  I'd expect him to be treated the same as any other profession.  Before and after conviction.

 

Hopefully that will make the inconsistency of the argument that he shouldn't be allowed to pursue a career clear.  

 

As to his guilt or innocence, it's quite simple.  He's guilty, because the people who sat through the trial on the jury and heard the evidence said so.  Nothing else actually matters.

 

I hope we don't sign him because I don't want the controversy associated with my club but that's a different matter entirely.

 

I agree this debate is getting a bit tired and we're all starting to go round in circles but the problem with your argument is that not all professions are treated the same.  As has been stated, there are several professions you could not go into if you had a conviction of this nature.  For example I've just accepted a job that's subject to a DBS check because I will come into contact with vulnerable adults on a regular basis. My DBS will be absolutely fine but, if I had done what Ched Evans had done, I would not be able to pursue my preferred career.  Meanwhile I imagine there's certain public roles that one could not do if they had certain convictions.    Chris Langham has long since served his time but he hasn't been back on television and I doubt he ever will be.  Nor Rolf Harris or Dave Lee Travis and I can't imagine Max Clifford leaving prison and moving back into anything other than a quiet early retirement.

 

So the debate is not "should all criminals be treated equally?" but "should football be treated similar to professions which are closed to people with sex offences?"  My belief is that it shouldn't be but, if I were chairman or manager of a football club I wouldn't employ him personally and, as a fan, I don't want him at a club I support.  And I do think that, whilst his conviction should not bar him being a professional footballer, his public refusal to show remorse combined with a website bearing his name attempting to further shame and denigrate his victim make him a serious reputational risk for any prospective employer.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

No point keeping on covering the same ground, so this will be my last point on this, if he was also drunk and thought he had consent, but in someone else's opinion he didn't, then there could be a lot of similar cases, stretching back many years. It just seems to be a grey area to me, maybe not to you. (London Bristolian).

 

So he is drunk = excuse/defence?.

[LondonBristolian]

No point keeping on covering the same ground, so this will be my last point on this, if he was also drunk and thought he had consent, but in someone else's opinion he didn't, then there could be a lot of similar cases, stretching back many years. It just seems to be a grey area to me, maybe not to you. (London Bristolian).

 

I'd say there almost certainly are.  Some research in the US in 2011 concluded that 19.3 % of women and 2% of men had been raped at some point in their lives and that 44% of women and 23% of men have experienced sexual violence.  Obviously a lot of those people do not feel comfortable reporting those experiences to the police but, through both my work and simply talking to female friends, I'd say those figures sound plausible to me.  I think there's a lot of denial about how widespread the problem is.  

 

Obviously there are various reasons why this doesn't get reported - not simply shame or women believing they won't be believed or the experience will be traumatic but also people feeling loyalty to their friends or partners and not wanting to get them in trouble, people "not wanting to cause a fuss" and a large element of denial - reporting what happened would make it seem all the more real and it's much better to rationalise and pretend it didn't happen.  But make no mistake - surveys consistently find that the prevalence of rape is far higher than any of us would like to believe.

[Ben_86UK]

Time done should count for something? If he was a dustman would any one care or notice? I remember the chant about agogo being a p@#$ and we sang that away at Forrest when he scored that makes us bad people too. If he joined city and scored the goal that got us promoted champions...then what would you say?

[bs3]

I agree. In my job I have to be vetted and if I was a convicted rapist I would be able to  work in my chosen industry.

No I work as a proof reader,

[cityexile]

This debate is pretty tired.

 

A question for those who think he shouldn't be allowed to play football after release:

 

Would you consider it ok for him to have special treatment, say a year off his sentence, because he was a footballer?

 

No, nor me.  I'd expect him to be treated the same as any other profession.  Before and after conviction.

 

Hopefully that will make the inconsistency of the argument that he shouldn't be allowed to pursue a career clear.  

 

As to his guilt or innocence, it's quite simple.  He's guilty, because the people who sat through the trial on the jury and heard the evidence said so.  Nothing else actually matters.

 

I hope we don't sign him because I don't want the controversy associated with my club but that's a different matter entirely.

Difficult to argue with much of that.

It would be true to say that there would be many professions he would not be able to continue to pursue with this type of conviction. Equally, would be stretching a point to argue football, in itself, is one of those. I think what makes it more difficult to warm to is the sense of a lack of remorse, or so it seems from a distance.

[spudski]

It's a funny old world...fans go mental at footballer, yet people in authority ( the church ) seem to get away with it... so many inconsistencies in the law it seems...depending who, or what you represent.

Not saying it's right...just get fed up with one rule for one and not the other.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

It's a funny old world...fans go mental at footballer, yet people in authority ( the church ) seem to get away with it... so many inconsistencies in the law it seems...depending who, or what you represent.

Not saying it's right...just get fed up with one rule for one and not the other.

 

You might have a point Spud, but speaking as an atheist my church is the church of BCFC and as long as we never sign the piece shit Evans, i'll still believe.

 

Only yesterday the catholic church promoted to it's number 3 position an archbishop and former Liverpool priest or bishop, who in recent years to cover up sex abuse scandals in Australia tried to claimed diplomatic immunity in his response to the abused in handing over documents and then only handed over some of them, so much for the modernising Pope

[Nibor]

I agree this debate is getting a bit tired and we're all starting to go round in circles but the problem with your argument is that not all professions are treated the same.  As has been stated, there are several professions you could not go into if you had a conviction of this nature.  For example I've just accepted a job that's subject to a DBS check because I will come into contact with vulnerable adults on a regular basis. My DBS will be absolutely fine but, if I had done what Ched Evans had done, I would not be able to pursue my preferred career.  Meanwhile I imagine there's certain public roles that one could not do if they had certain convictions.    Chris Langham has long since served his time but he hasn't been back on television and I doubt he ever will be.  Nor Rolf Harris or Dave Lee Travis and I can't imagine Max Clifford leaving prison and moving back into anything other than a quiet early retirement.

 

So the debate is not "should all criminals be treated equally?" but "should football be treated similar to professions which are closed to people with sex offences?"  My belief is that it shouldn't be but, if I were chairman or manager of a football club I wouldn't employ him personally and, as a fan, I don't want him at a club I support.  And I do think that, whilst his conviction should not bar him being a professional footballer, his public refusal to show remorse combined with a website bearing his name attempting to further shame and denigrate his victim make him a serious reputational risk for any prospective employer.

 

The only professions which are treated differently legally are those where there is a different level of risk.  There's no realistic argument that footballers are in that group so it's not a relevant point.

[spudski]

You might have a point Spud, but speaking as an atheist my church is the church of BCFC and as long as we never sign the piece shit Evans, i'll still believe.

 

Only yesterday the catholic church promoted to it's number 3 position an archbishop and former Liverpool priest or bishop, who in recent years to cover up sex abuse scandals in Australia tried to claimed diplomatic immunity in his response to the abused in handing over documents and then only handed over some of them, so much for the modernising Pope

I totally agree fella...although from what I understand...the situation that Evans found himself in, happens nearly every week.

He got caught and found out.

It doesn't mean we, or any other Club, or any other business doesn't employ people like this...it just haven't come to light.

I've met some really horrible men and women, who brag about being drunk and in situations like Evans found himself in.

There are a lot of vile people out there

[westred1]

its not ok in my eyes nether is Luke McCormick (or whatever his name is)

Luke McCormick is a VERY different case to that of Lee Hughes, who is definitely scum.

[Red-Robbo]

Ok i'm with you now, yes of course she is burning up the alcohol but at a very much slower rate 10% an hour or so, it would appear that in the last hour in the nightclub she necked a fairly substantial amount, so during the first hour alone with Mcdonald her blood alcohol content was still rising and pretty much the time that Evans appeared on the scene probably coincided with the height or close to the height of her intoxication.

Anyway even though her intoxication was slowly going down, it doesn't follow that her cognitive state was improving in fact almost certainly the opposite, as most people who have ever been roaring drunk will testify.

What I've always thought with this case is it's surely both were guilty or neither? She was pissed when she got into the cab with McDonald, how can she be more so later on when Evans arrived? Also was the crime not reported for a number of days later, following some girl calling the girl concerned a "slag" in the street?

It's a case that as I say I'd hate to have been on a jury for. For those wanting the personal line, yes I'm the daughter of two girls and I'd pray to God they never put themselves in this position, but also I have picked up women in a club and slept with them when we've both been drunk. Where would I have stood if one regretted it later and said "I was to drunk to consent"?

At the end of the day, I feel the same as those who say, regardless of guilt or innocence, he's done his time. He has as much right to earn a living as - say - a bricklayer who has done similar.

I also am glad our club is not involved in all this.