So why should anybody feel uncomfortable. Plenty of guilty people get away with being found not guilty and plenty of innocent people unfortunately get found guilty.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Ched Evans
- Thread starter Brighton TID
- Start date
So why should anybody feel uncomfortable. Plenty of guilty people get away with being found not guilty and plenty of innocent people unfortunately get found guilty.
Well it depends what they said doesn't it. If they said 'he's been found guilty of rape, so I don't think he should play again', then fair enough, they've based their comment on the verdict. If they've said 'I don't care whether he's guilty or not, he should be hung by his testicles until he's dead', then I couldn't agree with them. The point is, it depends what they said.
symyjym
Banned
I think this execution method has a flaw.
Like you people are entitled to an opinion, just because it differs from you. People are free to dislike him surely. So why should anyone feel uncomfortable. My personal opinion is that he had no thought for anyone that night and that he is a waste of space. Makes no difference if he raped her or not. If you were his girlfriends friend or family I am sure you would want to hang him by his testicles. Like I said it's all about opinions
And I'm allowed to think their opinion stinks, right?
I agree. Hardly a unique attitude.
What a load of shit. So you think that people who like casual sex are the same as rapist. Unbelievable.Well given that his girlfriend's father has paid for his fight for justice, I guess you're wrong.
And I'm allowed to think their opinion stinks, right?
I agree. Hardly a unique attitude.
Well given that his girlfriend's father has paid for his fight for justice, I guess you're wrong.
If you are going to quote then get it right, you break it up to suit you.
I said I didn't like him, meaning it makes no difference if he raped her or not. So if he wins his appeal, I still don't like him. Nothing to do with casual sex or rape. Just because the father is paying for his defence, doesn't mean he has to like him. Do you know for sure what her friends or family think of him
symyjym
Banned
The only difference it will make to him if this is quashed is that any media stories about him won't have "Convicted Rapist" preceding his name.
nwgull
Well-known member
I expect that he'd get a contract with a professional football team as well.
You're not naive. You know, I'm sure, how frequently in rape cases women's sexual history is brought up to muddy the waters and make her seem 'easy' and draw doubt that she would ever say no to sex, or that she led him on or whatever. The argument itself would help continue the denial of the court's decision (should it stand after the appeal) among his supporters (whether they support him because he played for their team, because they are friends, or because they are men who are scared what it means for them if what Evans did constitutes rape).
In the case of the appeal, the jury had to decided if she didn't consent, if she was unable to consent, whether it was reasonable for Evans or MacDonald to believe she could. MacDonald had the meeting with her in town and her willingly going back to a hotel alone with him to give context to his belief she consented.
Evans' current context to his belief is that he lied to a porter to gain access to his friend's room and she was there drunk.
Convince the right people that she was an easy lay who regularly had sex, maybe even has a history of threesomes, based solely on some dirty talk in the heat of the moment or hearsay and rumour, and suddenly Evans' context is he went into a room with someone who is known in the area for being up for engaging in group sex, even though she never did (if the comments are based solely on hearsay etc).
I'm not arguing the point of law, I'm commenting on the presentation of the case in the article.
Yes, but you cut off the second part of that point, that it was something they had tried to argue at two previous hearings attempting to gain the right of appeal (and again, about the article's presentation, not the point of law)
I think, given his admitted behaviour (turning around from heading to meet his brother at the police station after receiving a text about his friend 'having a bird', lying to a porter to get a key to his friend's room, having sex with a drunk woman while friends try to film it through the window, then abandoning her and sneaking out a back exit and eventually heading back to his girlfriend) he is an unpleasant fellow I would want nothing to do with, and wouldn't like having at my club, regardless of his guilt.
He is currently an unpleasant fellow who has been convicted of rape. I've been treating him as such, while also aware that the justice system isn't perfect, this case is not so black and white, and maybe he's innocent of rape. Still a convicted rapist and an unpleasant fellow with whom I want nothing to do.
If the decision is quashed, I will accept he is an unpleasant person who is not guilty of rape, and treat him as an innocent man, albeit one whom I want nothing to do because of his admitted behaviour.
I would also add that just as the court can find him guilty when he is innocent, they can also find him innocent when he is guilty, so of course some people will still question his legal status, whatever the decision.
Generally speaking, I think there is attitude that is prevalent among certain types of men, that is resistant to rape convictions where it is a case of a woman being too drunk to consent out of fear. Fear that if what Evans did constitutes rape, what about that time they had sex with that drunk woman? Fear that the next time they meet a drunk woman and have sex with her, she might claim rape. That they don't want to have the onus of checking that she really is capable to consent when they're horny and just want to get their rocks off. I think there are some men who just don't believe it's rape unless it involves a stranger jumping out from behind a bush and using force (at least one person expressed such a sentiment earlier in this thread, someone suggested any woman would be happy that a fit young footballer used them for sex simply because he's a fit young footballer).
I think a lot of my arguments have been about how the court/jury may have viewed the evidence, explanations for why MacDonald and Evans had different decisions, and generally trying to counter the attitude mentioned above.
If my arguments give the impression that I will believe him to be guilty it is a result of that, more than a reflection of my confidence in the decision. At least today. I'm pretty sure my confidence in the decision has ebbed and flowed, so there may well be comments I made earlier in the thread where I was more confident in it.
No I don't, I break it up so I can reply to separate points. If I've quoted something incorrectly that's not my intention, of course correct me.
But we're not just talking about whether people like him or not. I don't like him either, but the way I feel about someone who's a bit of a scumbag and someone who is a rapist is hugely different. Not all Brighton players are wonderful chaps either, I don't have to like them all.
His girlfriend chose to stay with him, so she must love him. Her father is paying to help clear his name, so while I imagine he's less than impressed with Ched's actions, I doubt he wants him strung up.
Since the appeal won't be in front of a jury, I'm sure the judges will be well placed to look at the evidence correctly.
Well he didn't play for my team, I'm not his friend, and I've never slept with someone I hadn't been dating for a month, but I am unsure of the verdict because it looks wrong to me. And I didn't know she was easy, other than the fact that she saw a man on the street and asked to join him to stay in his hotel.
I disagree. Even if she did engage in threesomes, that doesn't mean Evans would have known that, and he didn't testify that, so it can't be his case now. And to me, it doesn't matter if she does like having group sex, if it's beyond reasonable doubt that she was too drunk to consent, and Evans would have known that, then whether she likes group sex or not is irrelevant, she didn't give consent.
That's just a newspaper article, it's not how the case is presented to the judges.
That's not relevant. If the judge made mistakes, his team should point them out. Just because his team have pointed them out before, and they haven't been considered enough for an appeal to be granted doesn't mean they shouldn't bring them up again. In the appeal, everything will be brought up again.
I agree.
Same here.
Well none of that applies to me.
Understood.
If Evans is ultimately found not guilty, his position isn't a million miles away from Dunk is it ? Some behaviour that many would consider pretty unpleasant, but not a criminal.
Dunk went into his hotel room and went to sleep. I don't think he's supposed to have done anything else.
nwgull
Well-known member
Amazingly, even with evidence of him being on the phone when the supposed incident took place, it took 2 juries to decide that. And even then it wasn't unanimous.
I obviously didn't follow it closely enough at the time......that said, having done jury service, one of the cases brought by the CPS I was involved in was plain daft and should never have been brought.
Just because someone is a judge, doesn't mean they don't have outdated ideas of sexual politics, or aren't part of the problem with rape culture and victim blaming.
http://www.itv.com/news/2013-08-07/judge/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/193...-after-judge-says-victim-11-welcomed-sex.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23882735
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woman-judge-says-rape-conviction-4108960
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...rself-in-vulnerable-position-by-drinking.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/13/judge-derek-johnsons-rape_n_2297379.html
And the article was all I was really commenting on.
It kinda is. If people are talking about his appeal, it's worth noting that he is appealing on the same point he has twice previously failed an appeal on.
I didn't say or imply that it did. But, you are not the only person posting or reading this thread.
Hampster Gull
Well-known member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,465
He is guilty baed on first decision but lets see om the appeal. I am pleased thoigh that he will never play for the Albion
Is he? I thought the appeal was based on new evidence.
Just because you can find examples of judges that make poor decisions doesn't mean that generally speaking judges aren't well placed to decide what evidence is and is not relevant to a case. As I've explained, it shouldn't matter if she has had threesomes in the past, she was either in a fit state to consent or she was not. I suspect the judges will know that.
I don't see how. You said "They also seem to still be going after the judge, something that they tried, and failed, with previous attempts to get an appeal". The appeal has now been granted by the CCRC on the basis of new evidence, not because they're criticising the judge again. Their criticism of the judge was not enough for them to get an appeal before, but that doesn't mean their criticism was wrong. The fact that a newspaper is bringing it up is irrelevant to what's happening. You're guessing that their grounds for appeal is nothing more than some people saying she's easy, and I don't see how you can tell that.
No I know you didn't, I'm just highlighting that it's possible to question the verdict without being someone affected by it, and without being a rape apologist.
symyjym
Banned
I read today his new defence team had spent months with private investigators investigating the victim's life style and will present "significant inconsistencies in the lifestyle" of her and will also criticise police for not seizing crucial CCTV footage. The former reads to me that they plan to assisinate the character of the victim in the hope the judge will quash the appeal. This doesn't sound like significant new evidence; more a desperate last throw of the dice. But, this is limited information. Let's see what is presented.