Ched Evans

[severnside gull]

When the legal case finishes, he could well say that if he loses. I don't know if he's been advised not to say it now, while the legal case is ongoing. If it were possible for him to say that now, you'd think his lawyers would have told him to say it.

Had your actions been today, and put before a court, do you think a jury would consider you raped someone? If not, then you don't need to hide behind anything. If so - well I don't need to say anything.

I think if that was Evans' advice it was poor. The current review relates to legal process and does not consider innocence or guilt.

As for myself, no I don't think I could have been prosecuted. I was just massively insensitive in a way that, given changes in attitude and education, is not acceptable today. It may have been a throwaway line but I seriously think current societal perceptions of celebrity and responsibility are massively concerning

 

[Triggaaar]

As for myself, no I don't think I could have been prosecuted.

Good, i should bloody hope not.

It may have been a throwaway line but I seriously think current societal perceptions of celebrity and responsibility are massively concerning

In what way?

 

[aolstudios]

I just find it bizarre that people can't understand why, with everything that's happened and that Evans BELIEVES to be true, he isn't particularly looking to show any remorse. He's probably incredibly angry and upset about the whole thing, I think remorse is the last thing on his mind.

I don't think the above are rape apologist comments at all. They're people who believe (rightly or wrongly) that there was NO rape.

That's like being a vase apologist when there is no vase...

You've joined this thread recently haven't you?

I'm with HKFC 100% on the last couple of posts - including his surprise

 

[Steve.S]

pity he was not playing for a bigger club maybe MU he might just have been OK

It would be the same for any club, does not matter how big they are. Clubs have sponsors and sponsors have customers, bottom line is they will not take a risk on their profit margins and be seen to endorsing a convicted rapist. If he can overturn his conviction, then fine.

 

[dazzer6666]

Yet 12 people found McDonald 'not guilty' with the same Evidence. Plenty of ro for Human error.
Also Jury's are picked on the basis of the right people for the defence & prosecution are they not?

No, selected at random to avoid any possible bias. Based on my experience there is little margin for error as far as the jury are concerned in considering the facts, but cases can be very heavily influenced either way by the skill used in presentation of the facts and cross-examination by the respective barristers and the performance of the defendants and others.

 

[severnside gull]

In what way?

I just think people are so busy chasing their own slice of celebrity that they rarely stop to think of the consequences of their actions.
Celebrity because of what you achieve is one thing but it's all made to look so easy on TV and in the press that many seem to think they have a right to it.
And once they have it there seems to be a tremendous pressure to live it in a way that breeds arrogance and disrespect for others
Maybe it's just another reflection of the promotion of a gulf between the haves and have nots in our society.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Oh dear.

Oldham have issued a statement saying they are not saying anything about this for now.

Perhaps they've already signed him and want to back out of the deal

 

[severnside gull]

Oh dear.

Oldham have issued a statement saying they are not saying anything about this for now.

Perhaps they've already signed him and want to back out of the deal

That would be interesting.
Pick up the added costs. Lose your sponsors' income. Lose fans through the gate............

Shitty proposition. Who could've seen that coming?

 

[glasfryn]

It would be the same for any club, does not matter how big they are. Clubs have sponsors and sponsors have customers, bottom line is they will not take a risk on their profit margins and be seen to endorsing a convicted rapist. If he can overturn his conviction, then fine.

I was alluding to the accusation about Jonny Evans at MU, prehaps if Ched Evans had have been playing for MU he would have never got to the police station

 

[drew]

Yet 12 people found McDonald 'not guilty' with the same Evidence. Plenty of ro for error.
Also Jury's are picked on the basis of the right people for the defence & prosecution are they not?

Not sure 'picked' is quite the word. Apparently a central computer selects people at random from the electoral register. The prosecution and defence have a right to see the list but doubt they often do. When I did service, there was a group of jurors in the waiting room, 15 were selected at random and taken to the court room. The Judge asked if we recognised the names of the parties involved and some of the witnesses and then 12 names were drawn out of a hat and sat on the jury, the other three returning to the waiting room.

Please do read before you respond.
His opinion of whether his actions were right or wrong is entirely irrelevant to the fact that a court of law found him guilty of rape.
You are (or appear to be) suggesting that because he says it was untrue then it must be so. That is rewriting factual history insofar as a court of law found against him.
I have not said I would admit to rape if I thought I had not committed it. I have said that I would accept that a court of law had found against me (no matter I continued to protest innocence) and that insofar as I accept the rule of law I was remorseful towards the victim for the hurt they had suffered.
I am not overly clear why some people are happy to accept his evidence and discount that of the victim even when a court accepted her version and her right to say no. However I would expand on that. In his circumstances I would have indicated my remorse for their hurt even if I had been found not guilty. That is called compassion and an awareness of what is acceptable in ones behaviour within society.

The CCRC process as I understand it is not an appeal and is not about guilt or innocence but about legal process.

At this stage however, an indication of remorse for the suffering caused might well go in his favour in many respects

I have read it and would comment as follows. I have never said that because he says it didn't happen then it must be true. Perhaps it's your turn to read my previous posts. To save you the time, what I have said is that I'm not convinced that the evidence that is in the public domain does not convince me he was guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt. So again, I'm not rewriting history!

Poor analogy. He admits to having sexual intercourse. The issue is whether it was consensual at all stages.
A bit like a bomber putting explosives in place then saying because they issued a warning the victims knew what was going to happen and should have left before it went off

I don't see anything wrong with the analogy. They say they didn't bomb the pubs in Guildford and he says he didn't rape her. They were eventually found not guilty and we wait and see the outcome in his case.

 

[drew]

That doesn't make sense unless he was asked to condemn them

That was the point I was making. To refuse to condemn them, as suggested by Spring Hall Convert, would clearly imply that he was asked to condemn them and he said he wouldn't. I'm not aware of any reports to that effect, and if he had come out and said he refuses to condemn them then I'm sure that would have been widely reported.

 

[spring hall convert]

Excuse me but you were the one who stated he had refused to condemn anyone. I asked for a link because as far as I am aware, there is no evidence that he has refused to condemn them. In your opinion he exacerbated but in his, he is pursuing his innocence. He girlfriend's dad is apparently paying for it so why don't you direct your vitriol at him. Furthermore, if you are innocent of a crime then wouldn't you pursue any avenue possible? Would you suggest that the Birmingham six or Guildford 4 should have kept their cases out of the press?

However, what we do agree on is your last paragraph.

He hasn't done it, therefore he has refused to do it. It's a slightly more nuanced version of the meaning of the word refused, granted.

I have absolute no idea what the girlfriend's dad thinks he's up to, genuinely 100% baffled. Comparing this to the G4 and B6 is in bad taste if you ask me and you can say that about any conviction. Their convictions were politically motivated. Also the G4 and B6 weren't released to resume a lucrative football career, it's a non-argument like the "What about Hughes, McCormack, King etcccc," that people keep bringing up. Total non-argument.

I haven't actually been vitriolic, it's you that appears to be getting hot under the collar. All I said is that I think it's Evans fault that he is being judged in the court of public opinion, you disagreed. We then had a debate. The only thing I'm vitriolic about are the people that think that some PC mob are stopping Evans from playing - Evans can play any time he finds a club with fans and sponsors that are prepared to have an unrepentant convicted rapist on their books, I would be mortified if he turned up at Brighton with the situation as it is.

I'm glad we agree on something. He's been an absolute fool in the way he's handled this. An arrogant fool if you ask me, I think he thought he'd just walk back in, no questions asked. If he wanted to play football again immediately he needed to drop the appeal, apologise and make amends as best he could or wait until the process completed. To do anything else was to be catastrophically blinkered to the public's attitude towards sex crime.

I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and wait to see what happens but for him to play football in the meantime as an unrepentant convicted rapist is unimaginable. It won't happen.

 

[symyjym]

That was the point I was making. To refuse to condemn them, as suggested by Spring Hall Convert, would clearly imply that he was asked to condemn them and he said he wouldn't. I'm not aware of any reports to that effect, and if he had come out and said he refuses to condemn them then I'm sure that would have been widely reported.

But you are just playing with the word he used, he could have used didn't instead of refused. I just think it is pointless to extend a counter argument by trying to prove a pedantic point rather than any value to the actual discussion.

 

[Acker79]

Is this true he is quite likely to be playing at Oldham soon ?
I just caught the back end of it on the news.

No one appears to have answered this.

Apparently, it was rumoured a few weeks back and they denied it. Then Gordon Taylor announced Ched was close to signing for a league one club, but because of the steps forward and then back he wasn't counting his chickens. Various were rumoured, each denying it, until it became generally accepted it would be Oldham.

They had apparently been assured that Sports Direct would not withdraw their support if they signed Ched. It then came out Oldham had not consulted with supporters clubs (something that it feels weird to suggest they should do when signing a player generally, but in this case it surely would make sense). A petition was started that quickly got to 10,000 names, then to 20,000. Word was that Oldham would be announcing his signing in the morning. Word also leaked that the manager was opposed to signing him, but the owners were overruling him because they wanted to buy a quality player on the cheap, hoping to make a profit by selling him after they take the PR hit of being the first to sign him.

This then became the board would be having a meeting this morning and would decide by tomorrow afternoon.

The sponsor of one of the stands has said it would pull their support of Ched signs, Mecca Bingo have since said they would pull their support if he signs. The head of the local police has condemned the potential signing saying it sends the wrong message due to his lack of contrition. A shadow secretary (of sport?) has called on the FA to refuse to register Evans until the review and any appeal has been completed.

Oldham are now saying they are doing their due diligence before deciding whether to sign Evans or not.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

I think it's on his website but one of the tweets was about how she was going to spend all the money when she got her payout.

The supposed tweets said about winning big not payout so more likely to be relating to something different, lottery perhaps? Also you don't get big payouts from "winning" something like this. Surely if she wanted money she'd either go down the kiss and tell or blackmail route?

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

She didn't make any complaint. It was Evans and McDonald that went to the police.

I don't think they went to the police, I believe the police went to ask them questions about the night but not about rape in the first instance.

 

[beardy gull]

I think it's on his website but one of the tweets was about how she was going to spend all the money when she got her payout.

Ah yes, his infamous website. I've read a lot from the rape/Ched Evans apologists on here about the key and undisputed facts section....only?

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/jan/05/ched-evans-victim-website

He might reflect that a website, set up and funded by his supporters to maintain his innocence, does not achieve a greatly improved perception of him. It offers a £10,000 reward for information leading to his conviction being overturned, apparently inviting the victim’s friends to come forward with information about her.

There is a section headlined “Key and undisputed facts”, yet it describes McDonald’s text from the taxi like this: “On the way to the Premier Inn Clayton sent a message to Ched saying words to the effect of: ‘I am with a girl.’”

The girl, about whom McDonald had in fact texted “I’ve got a bird,” faced the trauma of what happened, then the police investigation, giving evidence in court, and, according to her father, is still suffering.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

Ah yes, his infamous website. I've read a lot from the rape/Ched Evans apologists on here about the key and undisputed facts section....only?

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/jan/05/ched-evans-victim-website

He might reflect that a website, set up and funded by his supporters to maintain his innocence, does not achieve a greatly improved perception of him. It offers a £10,000 reward for information leading to his conviction being overturned, apparently inviting the victim’s friends to come forward with information about her.

There is a section headlined “Key and undisputed facts”, yet it describes McDonald’s text from the taxi like this: “On the way to the Premier Inn Clayton sent a message to Ched saying words to the effect of: ‘I am with a girl.’”

The girl, about whom McDonald had in fact texted “I’ve got a bird,” faced the trauma of what happened, then the police investigation, giving evidence in court, and, according to her father, is still suffering.

Yes I read that website and I didn't think it painted Evans in a very good light at all and if that's from his side, what does the other side say?

 

[Hillian1]

Yes I read that website and I didn't think it painted Evans in a very good light at all and if that's from his side, what does the other side say?

The other side said:

"Guilty"

 

[wellquickwoody]

I'm not going through 1500 posts to quote them all for you, sorry.

But there are plenty in here, ticking all the following boxes:

1. She was up for it.
2. Its just a good night out.
3. She's no angel (she was asking for it)
4. She went back with McDonald, so she was 'game'.
5. Its not like it was a proper rape, anyway.


etc, etc.

Surprised at your stance [MENTION=12101]Mellotron[/MENTION]
Genuinely.

I have not read one post like that on this thread, you are making it up as you go along. Climb down off your high horse and realise that none of us KNOW the full truth. As it stands he is a convicted rapist, while trying to get an appeal he is not going to apologise. Also the law states that his punishment is that given out by the court process, it is not for the rest of us to continue to punish (unless you believe in lynch mobs?).

It would be interesting to know how many of the 25,000 who have signed the petition demanding that Oldham do not sign him actually have convictions themselves. Let he without sin etc etc..