Ched Evans

[JCL - the new kid in town]

I didn't say it was right or wrong (I don't know exactly what these people have done to her, and 'hound' isn't very specific). I said that if his mates know (not believe) that they were having consensual sex, then they know there has been a miscarriage of justice, and in such a case, I don't see why the wrongly accused would ask them to stop.
.

His mates were outside the room so couldn't hear what went on so wouldn't be able to hear her say yes/no and didn't he close the curtains (or am i mis-remembering something). Also no evidence of texts/pics etc were found on their phones? why would they delete them, how often do you delete texts/pics from your phone?

 

[Creaky]

I'm fairly positive you're wrong. She can't remember what happened, but she's been told what happened, and she has agreed to press charges. If she didn't think she was raped, she'd just say, and that would be the end of the case.

I think you'll find you are wrong - she can't remember what happened - she doesn't have to 'press charges', that is a US term. The CPS decide whether or not a charge is made, they do NOT act for the victim who is simply another witness. The only way that the girl could have stopped this prosecution would have been to have lied and said she did remember giving consent.

That sentence makes no sense. I ask you 'what exactly do you think I see as acceptable?' and this is your reply. It's the opposite of 'exactly'.

You ignored the part of my post where I laid out what you apparently felt as acceptable in the above reply - to clarify again you posted

Re he should call on those friends to stop hounding the girl: surely that depends on what happened that night. Assuming he raped her, then yes, he should. But what if he didn't, and his mates could clearly see that she was a voluntary participant? IF that were the case, then I don't see why he would.

That is quite clear to me - you find it acceptable if friends of Evans 'hound' the girl involved

I didn't say it was right or wrong (I don't know exactly what these people have done to her, and 'hound' isn't very specific). I said that if his mates know (not believe) that they were having consensual sex, then they know there has been a miscarriage of justice, and in such a case, I don't see why the wrongly accused would ask them to stop.

I agree that hound is a vague term but includes making derogatory comments about her on social websites amongst other things - how are these justified under any circumstances unless you are saying that she is lying and actually remembers what happened and knows that she consented to sex with Evans, which is a totally different scenario - any half decent human being would in my opinion say that blame for any miscarriage of justice lies not with the girl but with the system and that that is where any ire should be directed.

It seems that others believe that even if he is innocent, he shouldn't have the opportunity to return to work, and I disagree.

I believe he should have the opportunity to return to work if he can find an employer willing to offer him that work - I don't however believe that any club is obliged to offer him a job nor do I believe it is unreasonable for supporters and/or sponsors to state that they will remove their support of any club that does offer him employment.

 

[nwgull]

Yep he could have chosen to start with working within the football world rather than on the football stage, redeem himself and become the reformed character before returning to the pitch.

We all have choices, and he has been ill advised on his comeback.

I don't think he would be able to get any job in football right now. Even the prospect of him just training, unpaid, with Sheffield Utd was enough to cause sponsors to kick up a fuss.

 

[Triggaaar]

But I don't think anyone on this thread that would advocate him not being allowed to play if he were to be found not guilty.

Indeed, but I'm not discussing what could happen in a couple of years, I'm talking about the hypothetical possibility that he is not guilty, and he knows he's not. In that scenario, then it is harsh on him that he's had to serve time for a crime he didn't commit, and even after that, he cannot go back to work. Like I say, it's a hypothetical scenario, so please don't quote me out of context suggesting that I'm saying he has been hard done by.

But the point I'm making is that he IS allowed to play

I know the law is allowing him to play, but he's not being allowed to play for other reasons, as you've explained. Either way, he's not being allowed to play.

Who has said that?

It's what I felt you were suggesting.

It seems to me that a fair number have agreed that he has every right to return to work, but doesn't have a right for this to be exclusively as a footballer.

That is his work. In the hypothetical scenario that he is innocent, do you believe he should be able to go back to work as a footballer, or not?

Footballers are not special. They should not be given special treatment. No other professional has this right to walk straight back into their previous role after a prison sentence. Many can never return. You seem to think a footballer does.

I've never made even the slightest suggestion that he should be given his old role at Sheffield back, even if he's innocent. If he is guilty (not just according to the legal system, but in reality), I'm not sure I'd feel he ever deserves to have such a privileged job again. I certainly don't think footballers are special, or that they should be given special treatment.

We've been discussing his behaviour, which is clearly affected by the fact he claims he is innocent. If he is innocent, do you think he has been wronged, or do you think he's got what he deserved for having little respect for women?

His mates were outside the room so couldn't hear what went on so wouldn't be able to hear her say yes/no and didn't he close the curtains

What she said aren't the only possible indicator of whether she gave consent. If she looked to be practically unconscious, that would suggest there was a good chance she didn't give consent. The defendants claimed that she was changing the sexual positions herself, and if they witnessed that, it would suggest that she had given consent.

Also no evidence of texts/pics etc were found on their phones? why would they delete them, how often do you delete texts/pics from your phone?

That suggests that they didn't take anything that was good enough to use as evidence. If they had simply deleted the files, the police should be able to recover those files from their phones.

Maybe these people witnessed a rape, and knew what they were witnessing, and they should be locked up too. Or maybe not.

 

[symyjym]

I don't think he would be able to get any job in football right now. Even the prospect of him just training, unpaid, with Sheffield Utd was enough to cause sponsors to kick up a fuss.

Agree and I find it hard to understand why he believes that he would be an advantage to any club that signed him. The football terrace is the front line for abuse which would never help his team, and then we have the opinions of organisations and people who sponsor clubs. It’s a contentious story where he will not win back the huge percentage.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

What she said aren't the only possible indicator of whether she gave consent. If she looked to be practically unconscious, that would suggest there was a good chance she didn't give consent. The defendants claimed that she was changing the sexual positions herself, and if they witnessed that, it would suggest that she had given consent.

However actions without sounds can be misconstrued very easily. Its quite a common test showing people doing things without sound and seeing how differently they view it to what is actually going on.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

To be honest, I'm just very thankful that the albion are not employing him.

Not fussed at all what Oldham do, but I am surprised they didn't learn from the previous reactions to the idea of signing Mr Evans.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

That suggests that they didn't take anything that was good enough to use as evidence. If they had simply deleted the files, the police should be able to recover those files from their phones.

i thought i read somewhere that they couldn't recover the pics/texts sent, is that not suspicious?

 

[Triggaaar]

I think you'll find you are wrong - she can't remember what happened - she doesn't have to 'press charges', that is a US term. The CPS decide whether or not a charge is made, they do NOT act for the victim who is simply another witness. The only way that the girl could have stopped this prosecution would have been to have lied and said she did remember giving consent.

So she couldn't have said she didn't want to be a witness? You maybe right on the first bit, but surely you're wrong there. Rape victims are not forced to testify in court are they?

That is quite clear to me - you find it acceptable if friends of Evans 'hound' the girl involved

No, that clearly isn't what I am saying. Firstly, my point was clearly in the hypothetical scenario where the girl was not just consenting, but actively willing participant in the events. Secondly, I still didn't say that they should hound her, but in such a case, I could understand why someone who had wrongfully been sent to prison wouldn't try to stop them.

I agree that hound is a vague term but includes making derogatory comments about her on social websites amongst other things - how are these justified under any circumstances unless you are saying that she is lying and actually remembers what happened and knows that she consented to sex with Evans, which is a totally different scenario - any half decent human being would in my opinion say that blame for any miscarriage of justice lies not with the girl but with the system and that that is where any ire should be directed.

Yes I agree, if all she did was tell the police what she remembered. This would be a criticism of the friends though, and what I've said above still applies. Re the what the girl has claimed: did she not make some claim about being drugged? Regarding the idea that she had nothing to do with the fact they were prosecuted, and her right to anonymity, why was she tweeting about winning big? Surely if she wishes to be anonymous, she shouldn't be doing that?

I believe he should have the opportunity to return to work if he can find an employer willing to offer him that work - I don't however believe that any club is obliged to offer him a job nor do I believe it is unreasonable for supporters and/or sponsors to state that they will remove their support of any club that does offer him employment.

I agree.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Indeed, but I'm not discussing what could happen in a couple of years, I'm talking about the hypothetical possibility that he is not guilty, and he knows he's not. In that scenario, then it is harsh on him that he's had to serve time for a crime he didn't commit, and even after that, he cannot go back to work. Like I say, it's a hypothetical scenario, so please don't quote me out of context suggesting that I'm saying he has been hard done by.

I know the law is allowing him to play, but he's not being allowed to play for other reasons, as you've explained. Either way, he's not being allowed to play.

It's what I felt you were suggesting.

That is his work. In the hypothetical scenario that he is innocent, do you believe he should be able to go back to work as a footballer, or not?

I've never made even the slightest suggestion that he should be given his old role at Sheffield back, even if he's innocent. If he is guilty (not just according to the legal system, but in reality), I'm not sure I'd feel he ever deserves to have such a privileged job again. I certainly don't think footballers are special, or that they should be given special treatment.

We've been discussing his behaviour, which is clearly affected by the fact he claims he is innocent. If he is innocent, do you think he has been wronged, or do you think he's got what he deserved for having little respect for women?


What she said aren't the only possible indicator of whether she gave consent. If she looked to be practically unconscious, that would suggest there was a good chance she didn't give consent. The defendants claimed that she was changing the sexual positions herself, and if they witnessed that, it would suggest that she had given consent.

That suggests that they didn't take anything that was good enough to use as evidence. If they had simply deleted the files, the police should be able to recover those files from their phones.

Maybe these people witnessed a rape, and knew what they were witnessing, and they should be locked up too. Or maybe not.

You know what, I think you mostly agree with what is being said, but for some reason you've turned all this into some adversarial battle of wits, and now doing your level best to twist and turn, and say people have said certain things when they clearly haven't, and to be honest, you're in a complete mess with where you are coming from. If you want answers to the questions above you've asked me, they've already been answered, but you're choosing to read all sorts of other things into posts. In fact, you're probably getting many people confused into one big argument in your head. I'm going to leave you to it.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

Regarding her the idea that she had nothing to do with the fact they were prosecuted, and her right to anonymity, why was she tweeting about winning big? Surely if she wishes to be anonymous, she shouldn't be doing that?

you don't win big from court cases and there is no evidence linking those tweets to the case. How many people put tweets like that every week after they have a bought a lottery ticket?

 

[Bryzee]

We would probably lose a few sponsors so no, hes finished as a footballer should`nt have brains in his DICK

 

[nwgull]

i thought i read somewhere that they couldn't recover the pics/texts sent, is that not suspicious?

I thought that the video was available but that the quality was so poor (due to it being dark maybe?) that it was useless as evidence.

The victim had however deleted a load of Facebook messages that she'd sent that weren't recoverable.

 

[Triggaaar]

for some reason you've turned all this into some adversarial battle of wits, and now doing your level best to twist and turn, and say people have said certain things when they clearly haven't, and to be honest, you're in a complete mess with where you are coming from.

What a load of crap. I say what I think, and that's it. You chose to start arguing with me over trivial points.

 

[LamieRobertson]

We would probably lose a few sponsors so no, hes finished as a footballer should`nt have brains in his DICK

As a matter of interest did you say roughly the same about Lee Hughes?

 

[Worried Man Blues]

On the other hand would you want him painting your daughters bedroom, in your house selling double glazing or delivering mail to your front door? I think it's best he is on a list and we know where he is every Saturday afternoon!

 

[Dick Head]

I heard that Oldham had turned him down but he just wouldn't take no for an answer.

 

[BensGrandad]

Oldham withdrawn their offer apparently. As I said previously I think the FA should take control and if they say yes he can play back the club that takes him by saying whatever you lose through sponsors pulling out we will cover that loss for this season as it is will be a div 1 or 2 club and that money wont be astronomical. If they decide no then refuse to register him end of story no problem.

 

[Da Man Clay]

Oldham withdrawn their offer apparently. As I said previously I think the FA should take control and if they say yes he can play back the club that takes him by saying whatever you lose through sponsors pulling out we will cover that loss for this season as it is will be a div 1 or 2 club and that money wont be astronomical. If they decide no then refuse to register him end of story no problem.

Why on earth would they do that? He is quite clearly able to sign for another club. To start paying for loss revenue would be absolutely diabolical. Imagine how that looks to rape victims?

 

[dolphin]

Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams are mass murderers and sit in our parliament . We pay their wages . Is there no worse crime than murder ? They have been allowed to continue with their careers !