WTFiGO!?! Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 As I said in my previous post, this is too simple minded an approach. Would you categorise him alongside someone who violently threatened a girl with a knife in a secluded location?What have knives and secluded areas neccesarilly got to do with rape? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!james Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Let's remember that Oldham were the club to offer the delightful Lee Hughes a contract when he was released from prison... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dollymarie Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Let's remember this is all IF she failed to give consent. Ive said this so many times now The courts decided she was UNABLE to give consent due to the state she was in, in the very same way that a girl under 16 is unable to give consent, even if she willingly sleeps with her boyfriend. She couldnt give consent, hence the guilty verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strawberry2157. Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Oldham according to the sun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM91 Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 One of the main flaws in arguments here is those who suggest "he was found guilty" yet still hound him having now done his time. surely if you're going to justify your opinion based on the verdict of the court you will equally accept the sentence handed by the court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bar BS3 Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Thought a Sky News presenter just let slip it is Oldham, by saying "Oldham the un-named club ...." It's all over BBC news that it's Oldham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stortz Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Haven't really read much of this thread but I couldn't really feel more strongly about this. The first main point being, we have a very valuable person here, who could earn a decent wedge and pay a decent amount of tax. What benefit do we attain by forcing every job move he has to be incredibly difficult and tarnishing the reputation(s) of the various companies he works for in future? There has to be a stage where he has served his time, that's what our society is based on is it not? At what point do we deem an act so heinous that he should simply drift doing nothing for the rest of his life while we pay for him to live as we as a society are not allowing him to make his own way? Secondly, the details of the case are incredibly sketchy. The woman cannot remember what happened, and therefore she was unable to give consent and therefore she must have been raped, according to the courts. There were 2 footballers present, why was one freed and one prosecuted? If we reach a point where we're claiming that any woman who cannot remember having sex the night before was 'raped' then we would be in a very tricky situation indeed, and dare I say it, there would probably be a fair few 'rapists' on this board! I'm not for one minute suggesting there is such thing as a 'good' rape, but there is a clear distinction between this and a violent rape down an alley or something. Add to the fact that as a footballer, who collectively are very easily criticised down to their profession due to their behaviour, he was most likely made an example of, I actually think the handling of this Ched Evans saga is absolute nonsense. Let's remember this is all IF she failed to give consent. Let him get on with his career. The difference in cost to our nation between allowing him to play football and supporting him as he's unable to get a job would be huge. If we don't believe in rehabilitation (not that this necessarily applies) and re-accepting someone after they've paid their time then what do we have as a society? If you feel so strongly about it, how about actually reading some of the facts about it or even the thread you are so keen to post in before trotting out yet again the same discredited, speculative bullshit that many others have too? She could not give her consent through intoxication, it doesn't matter whether you or anyone else has an opinion on whether she did or not, in the eyes of the law she could not give consent, the same as a 12 year old cannot give consent. The nonsense people are coming out with in this thread is a clear indication of how dangerous it is to let unrepentant rapists like Evans pollute public opinion just because their girlfriends' dad has a load of money. Rape is rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM91 Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Ive said this so many times now The courts decided she was UNABLE to give consent due to the state she was in, in the very same way that a girl under 16 is unable to give consent, even if she willingly sleeps with her boyfriend. She couldnt give consent, hence the guilty verdict. Dangerous territory there though if we're to give such freedom to people because they are under the influence. If she was too drunk to willingly have sex then can being drunk not be used as an excuse for other actions? that being said, I understand that the point abiout drugs & alcohol being used by people intending to rape anyone. It is a really really grey area, and while there will be a spectrum of views on the matter, it is pointless for anyone to put forward theres as though it is gospel. Wonderful topic to debate, pointless if you intend to reach a conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 It's all over BBC news that it's Oldham. Yeah, I just heard it and have to say that it's all Lee Johnsons fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bar BS3 Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Dangerous territory there though if we're to give such freedom to people because they are under the influence. If she was too drunk to willingly have sex then can being drunk not be used as an excuse for other actions? that being said, I understand that the point abiout drugs & alcohol being used by people intending to rape anyone. It is a really really grey area, and while there will be a spectrum of views on the matter, it is pointless for anyone to put forward theres as though it is gospel. Wonderful topic to debate, pointless if you intend to reach a conclusion. It's not a grey area. Don't have sex with someone who isn't conscious. It's simple really! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stortz Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Dangerous territory there though if we're to give such freedom to people because they are under the influence. If she was too drunk to willingly have sex then can being drunk not be used as an excuse for other actions? that being said, I understand that the point abiout drugs & alcohol being used by people intending to rape anyone. It is a really really grey area, and while there will be a spectrum of views on the matter, it is pointless for anyone to put forward theres as though it is gospel. Wonderful topic to debate, pointless if you intend to reach a conclusion. Straw man argument, no-one has said being drunk means you can do what you want. It isn't a grey area whatsoever, she could not consent in the eyes of the law, hence Evans is a rapist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Ive said this so many times now The courts decided she was UNABLE to give consent due to the state she was in, in the very same way that a girl under 16 is unable to give consent, even if she willingly sleeps with her boyfriend. She couldnt give consent, hence the guilty verdict. If you feel so strongly about it, how about actually reading some of the facts about it or even the thread you are so keen to post in before trotting out yet again the same discredited, speculative bullshit that many others have too? She could not give her consent through intoxication, it doesn't matter whether you or anyone else has an opinion on whether she did or not, in the eyes of the law she could not give consent, the same as a 12 year old cannot give consent. The nonsense people are coming out with in this thread is a clear indication of how dangerous it is to let unrepentant rapists like Evans pollute public opinion just because their girlfriends' dad has a load of money. Rape is rape. I have a degree in Law I'm fully aware of the facts thanks. So presumably you think anyone who has sex with a girl who cannot remember it the next day is a rapist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Looking at this purely on football terms it's good he's not signing for any of the top 4. He will score goals just like Lee Hughes did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM91 Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Straw man argument, no-one has said being drunk means you can do what you want. It isn't a grey area whatsoever, she could not consent in the eyes of the law, hence Evans is a rapist. Okay, so if I, as a man, get really drunk this Friday night - too drunk to consent to sex - and end up going home with a girl and have sex have I been raped? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTFiGO!?! Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 One of the main flaws in arguments here is those who suggest "he was found guilty" yet still hound him having now done his time. surely if you're going to justify your opinion based on the verdict of the court you will equally accept the sentence handed by the court?True and should Rolf Harris live through his sentence, there will be public outcry shold he return to the entertainment business. People will point to King, Hughes and Tyson and call 'hypocrites!' but maybe things have moved on in those years? Personally, I'm not a Tyson fan and would never have wanted the other two at City anyway but a social unacceptence is only a good thing, imo. Think a web page for the wronly convicted, generically, would have been of better benefit than a personal campaign. The fact there were two 'journalists' filming the scene from the window is a massive pisser in his defence, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 One of the main flaws in arguments here is those who suggest "he was found guilty" yet still hound him having now done his time. surely if you're going to justify your opinion based on the verdict of the court you will equally accept the sentence handed by the court? Spot on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 One of the main flaws in arguments here is those who suggest "he was found guilty" yet still hound him having now done his time. surely if you're going to justify your opinion based on the verdict of the court you will equally accept the sentence handed by the court? Not necessarily. I can make my argument that I think the verdict was wrong, but based on the premise that IF it was right, 'this' is my opinion.... They're not linked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Straw man argument, no-one has said being drunk means you can do what you want. It isn't a grey area whatsoever, she could not consent in the eyes of the law, hence Evans is a rapist. And yet if a person commits a crime whilst intoxicated it's no defence in the eyes of the law. Who said the "the law is as ass?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedBrizzleRobin Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 The problem is, unlike the thousands of convicted rapists, some of whom were violent, Evans is in the public eye which leaves him open to be targeted and 'hounded' out. Rightly or wrongly he should be trying to get himself out of the public eye, if he still wants to be in football he should probably drop to non-league away from 'most' of the media and public attention. He free to seek employment, served his time set by the courts that is warranted by his crime and should be allower to reintigrate into society, just maybe he should take himself out of the limelight and contiune his career away from it all until his appeal is overtunred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dollymarie Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 I have a degree in Law I'm fully aware of the facts thanks. So presumably you think anyone who has sex with a girl who cannot remember it the next day is a rapist? I think what it highlights is that anyone who has sex with someone under the influence of alcohol could find themselves on the end of a rape charge given that the law stares if they are not in a fit state to consent then it is rape. If this case does nothing else, it should highlight that to people and make them think twice before having a drunken one night stand with someone who may not be in the correct state to consent to that drunken one night stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Okay, so if I, as a man, get really drunk this Friday night - too drunk to consent to sex - and end up going home with a girl and have sex have I been raped? Not if you had Brewers droop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stortz Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 I have a degree in Law I'm fully aware of the facts thanks. So presumably you think anyone who has sex with a girl who cannot remember it the next day is a rapist? I would have thought that with your law background you would be aware how important it is to have all the facts to hand before reaching a criminal verdict then- you know, the same as the jury who convicted him and appeal judges who told him to sod off did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM91 Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 I think what it highlights is that anyone who has sex with someone under the influence of alcohol could find themselves on the end of a rape charge given that the law stares if they are not in a fit state to consent then it is rape. If this case does nothing else, it should highlight that to people and make them think twice before having a drunken one night stand with someone who may not be in the correct state to consent to that drunken one night stand. As long as that applies to both men and women, then so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dollymarie Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 As long as that applies to both men and women, then so be it. Absolutely, rape is rape no matter who does it. And it is also rape be it a one night stand or in a committed relationship whenever one participant says no, or is unable to say yes for whatever reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 I think what it highlights is that anyone who has sex with someone under the influence of alcohol could find themselves on the end of a rape charge given that the law stares if they are not in a fit state to consent then it is rape. If this case does nothing else, it should highlight that to people and make them think twice before having a drunken one night stand with someone who may not be in the correct state to consent to that drunken one night stand. I think that attitude is fair enough, can't argue with that, but is it safe to publicly set an example of someone in this way? As can be seen in this thread, he is being thrown in with the very worst of the rapists, and let me repeat, while there is no such thing is a 'good' rape of course, this is incomparable with some of the utterly horrendous cases we've seen. They should not be tarnished with any kind of even similar brush. Yes it may make people think twice, but sending someone to prison for years, and ruining a livelihood because a woman simply can't remember? That's incredibly dangerous in my opinion, imagine how susceptible high profile people would be to lies in that case. And possibly in this case too.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 I would have thought that with your law background you would be aware how important it is to have all the facts to hand before reaching a criminal verdict then- you know, the same as the jury who convicted him and appeal judges who told him to sod off did? Yep, and on the whole I have faith in the legal system in comparison to others but let's face it, it doesn't mean that I can't disagree with some outcomes. I'm fully open to the idea that there could be something we don't know, I'm not privy to all information. But the courts have got it wrong before and they will get it wrong again, it's a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 I would have thought that with your law background you would be aware how important it is to have all the facts to hand before reaching a criminal verdict then- you know, the same as the jury who convicted him and appeal judges who told him to sod off did? Fair point, but shouldn't you be directing the same to all posters who feel the need to take punishment and vilification into their own hands even once he has served his time (albeit on licence currently). I have not yet heard one good reason why he should not continue in employment, even as a footballer. Re children wearing his shirt, well that's down to parents who buy it for their children, if indeed any would. Respect for the girl, well as long as this continues she's continually dragged up; let him carry on and the storm will settle. There is only one thing that doesn't sit easy with me and that is that he seems unrepentant. However, if he truly believes that he was innocent that is his prerogative and in my opinion in that case neither should he apologise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Looking at this purely on football terms it's good he's not signing for any of the top 4. He will score goals just like Lee Hughes did. He will divide the fans and players, Oldham will fall down the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welcome To The Jungle Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 What is the point of a criminal record then if not to add further punishment upon release Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshtonGreat Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 We can debate this for ever and a day, but the facts are that he was charged and found guilty by his peers, it matters neither here or there what may or may not happen in the future, the fact still remains that he is a convicted rapist and as such anyone with an ounce of morals should not touch this guy with a barge pole. Interesting comment, this. So you are effectively saying that the justice system has found him guilty, therefore so should we. BUT although the justice system has now decreed that he has served his punishment and therefore should be allowed to make a living, we should not follow suit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.