Ched Evans

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

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

Wow, have seen some idiotic comments on here, but that one just about trumps them all.

 

[clippedgull]

Oldham withdrawn their offer apparently.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.

The FA shouldn't be seen to support a rapist or indeed any criminal convicted of a serious offence.

There should be a moral code drawn up by the FA and if convicted of heinous crimes you should be barred for life. Simple.

Would stop scummy clubs trying to wrap up a cheap deal.

 

[BensGrandad]

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?

Clubs are not signing him because of the mob rule and sponsors pulling out. If the FA took the lead and compensated a club for the loss of sponsorship they would be seen to be being positive one way or the other.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Clubs are not signing him because of the mob rule and sponsors pulling out. If the FA took the lead and compensated a club for the loss of sponsorship they would be seen to be being positive one way or the other.

hmmmm

 

[Da Man Clay]

Clubs are not signing him because of the mob rule and sponsors pulling out. If the FA took the lead and compensated a club for the loss of sponsorship they would be seen to be being positive one way or the other.

Why should they fork out money for a convicted rapist to be playing football? Why should he get some sort of special treatment? Madness.

 

[Theatre of Trees]

Clubs are not signing him because of the mob rule and sponsors pulling out. If the FA took the lead and compensated a club for the loss of sponsorship they would be seen to be being positive one way or the other.

You really don't get this do you?

For the record if I was in the same position as Ched Evans there would be no way I'd be allowed to rejoin my profession for the simple expedient that they would not have me back I would have to find alternative sources of income and that is what Evans may well have to do himself.

 

[BensGrandad]

If what you are all saying about the FA is correct then simple they should come out and say no we will not accept his registration until he is found not guilty. No legal problem as they are autonomous in who they register or dont. It would stop all this trial by the media and petitions.

 

[Da Man Clay]

If what you are all saying about the FA is correct then simple they should come out and say no we will not accept his registration until he is found not guilty. No legal problem as they are autonomous in who they register or dont. It would stop all this trial by the media and petitions.

And why should they say that either? They've no need to get involved one way or another. Like all the other ex convicts he is entirely justified to seek whatever employment he wishes including football such as Lee Hughes.

 

[beardy gull]

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 !

Remind me of when either of these two were found guilty of murder, or indeed mass murder?

 

[drew]

It's not a few months. Isn't it 35 or so to see if he can have an appeal, and then a lengthy appeal after that?

By the way:
Ched has been found guilty of raping a girl, in the presence of his friend McDonald, who did nothing to help the girl. Should he not be charged with something like an accessory to commit rape?

Up to 35 weeks.

Your last comment is something that the case seems to have avoided. Surely aiding and abetting a rape would be something that Clayton is guilty off?

Did I read somewhere that he was originally convicted by a jury of his peers and sentenced for 5 years, he was then given leave to appeal, which he took and failed in the appeal court. He was then eventually let out on license, so still in effect serving his sentence. Now his legal team are challenging the appeal court's ruling over a technicality that is nothing to do with the verdict.

Oh and also that the victim( he is not the victim here, although you would not know it) has had to move house 5 times as she has received death threats.

Don't think he was given leave to appeal. He applied to have the right to appeal but that was turned down because there was no new evidence and Judge hearing the application decided there was nothing wrong with the court procedure. He then appealed against that decision but that decision was upheld. Not quite sure on what criteria it is now before the CCRC.

The whole thing is awful because its got out of hand. Dont think the death threats came from Evans himself did they? Is that a question or a statement? If the former, do you really think he would be walking the streets if he had? This is trial by press as well as by justice. In the eyes of the law he is guilty. I agree he is still on licence and that mitigated him from playing abroad. What I have problem with is the public hounding. Not sure I understand but are you saying once the sentence is completed the hounding will stop? I dont think so and he will still be barred from playing. Don't you?

If you want my honest opinion I suspect he is guilty but the simple thing would be for the Justice service to make clear to him that while he is still 'serving' he should refrain from trying to get a club and then when his service is complete he will be left alone.

idealistic non?

With regard to the rest of the post, whilst I am not convinced of his guilt, I agree with your comments regarding public hounding and to a degree about not trying to get a club but to the point when the review and possible appeal are complete rather than up until 2017 when his 5 years are complete.

Ched Evans maintains his claim to innocence in regard to his conviction for rape - something he has every right to do and as such can obviously not acknowledge that what he did was a crime.

However, and it is a big 'however', this is not a simple case of saying I didn't do it! He admits that he took advantage of a girl who was clearly drunk - the argument is only over whether or not she was so drunk that she couldn't consent to what happened.

Whether or not a crime was committed is surely irrelevant when it comes to expressing remorse - it would not hurt his appeal against conviction one iota if he apologised for his actions that night, called publicly for his 'supporters' to stop hounding the girl and accepted that his behaviour on that particular evening was not one that he is proud of. Even more so he should be calling on the others involved that evening to do the same.

The way his 'defence' has been presented so far suggests that he sees nothing wrong with the way he behaved and if the same 'opportunity' arose he would not behave any differently.

Where has it be shown that he has either behaved this way before or, as you suggest, would do so again? He may have done for all I know but I would have thought there would be a few more kiss and tell stories coming out of the woodwork if that were the case. That's the nature of naming 'celebrities' in sexual crime case as has been seen over recent years.

In some driving jobs you're not allowed to drive if you don't have a clean licence, I wonder if football could go down a similar route and anyone with a criminal record is unable to continue that career. Yes it sounds a bit draconian but there seems to be more and more footballers who get on the wrong side of the law and perhaps it would make them think twice before drink/driving, getting into fights etc.

You need to be a little more specific. A criminal record could include shoplifting as 16 year old, should that prevent you from changing your life and having a career in football. Motoring offences are part of your criminal record. In an ideal world it would be great if all footballers, or for that matter, any 'celebrity' led an altruistic life from cradle to grave but that isn't the real world. It may be a case of where do you draw the line and then who decides where that line is?

The hounding of the victim instigated by the website currently being investigated by the Attorney General's office said to be by his 'friends and family' that appears to be registered to Evans and funded by his girlfriends father. Especially in it's potential revealing of the victims identity that is a crime in itself. He could be charged with even more at this rate, even before a decision is made on whether he can be granted an appeal.

Exactly where has the website instigated the hounding of the girl in this case? It remains to be seen whether any prosecution is made against the website. It seems the investigation follows a complaint from the victim's father regarding the video from the Prem Inn. Something along the lines of only her head is blanked out so people can still recognize her! It is a technique that seems to be frequently used by the main media when hiding someone's identity so it does seem strange that it is good enough for them.

Now Evans can do as you've said, not feel in the mood to graft, or review how he appears to society right now, or make a decision on what might rehabilitate his reputation in order to be employable again, show at least some contrition for his behaviour, take his website down, and attempt to be employable again. All this can still be done while maintaining his innocence and pursuing his appeal review.

Hasn't he shown contrition for his behaviour in his video statement? Playing devils advocate, if you look at it from the perspective he is innocent, then the only person he has truly wronged is his girlfriend.

I don't think its been covered yet but apologies if it has but can someone answer what the point of his website is? It is purely to garner public opinion towards himself? It has nothing to do with the legal case or appeals so its purely a self promotion tool or am i missing something?

Surely the website keeps him in the public eye whereas without it he could have kept his head down and tried to let it blow over? I think it actually probably causes more antagonism if anything

The website is obviously a PR exercise to try and help the case for proving his innocence. It may not be everybodies cup of tea but then we do live in the age of social media. It is of course slanted heavily in his favour but for those that don't know much about the case (and bearing in mind a transcript of the original court case isn't online) it does provide a good starting point.

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?

You're right, he, or someone in the room, closed the curtains, but wouldn't that be after the sex had started so they would have seen the initial acts and could form a view as to whether it was consensual. As I think others have mentioned, I'm not sure the pics or video were deleted, they just weren't good enough to use as evidence, either for the prosecution or for the defence.

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.

You could take that view. However, do you not think most adults would be able to get a good indication, without hearing the voices, as to whether someone is a willing participant, non willing or just comatose!

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?

Are you for real, comparing a lottery win with a rape case! It doesn't stretch the imagination very much to see that she may have been thinking of seeking compensation from Evans via a civil case. She may even have been referring to possible compensation as a victim of crime awarded by the court. Of course she may even have been referring to something entirely different and unrelated.

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.

The facebook messages haven't been retrieved but the deleted 'when I win big' tweets have by, I believe, a New York Fireman.

 

[aolstudios]

Clubs are not signing him because of the mob rule and sponsors pulling out. If the FA took the lead and compensated a club for the loss of sponsorship they would be seen to be being positive one way or the other.

You really ought to think about leaving this thread alone, mate. You've gone from moaning about "the politically correct brigade", to "not an innocent little girl" (several times), "mob rule" & a short diversion to suggesting the F.A should compensate clubs for taking on Evans.
You're making yourself look stupid at best, or frankly a nasty, ignorant old git

 

[drew]

It's not a few months. Isn't it 35 or so toOTE=clippedgull;6750215]The FA shouldn't be seen to support a rapist or indeed any criminal convicted of a serious offence.

There should be a moral code drawn up by the FA and if convicted of heinous crimes you should be barred for life. Simple.

Would stop scummy clubs trying to wrap up a cheap deal.

Why just the FA? Why not any employer?

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Clubs are not signing him because of the mob rule and sponsors pulling out. If the FA took the lead and compensated a club for the loss of sponsorship they would be seen to be being positive one way or the other.

OK, we are all allowed our views, but in my opinion the borders on montrous.

By the way it is not 'mob rule'. It is individuals and companies expressing a clear position on an issue.

 

[Triggaaar]

Your last comment is something that the case seems to have avoided. Surely aiding and abetting a rape would be something that Clayton is guilty off?

You would think so. I can't see why he's not been charged.

PS, your last post is quoting someone else, but you've accidentally edited it to look like you're quoting me.

 

[The Camel]

This "mob rule" claim is a total fallacy.

The vast majority of decent, law abiding football supporters wouldn't want a rapist playing for their club.

 

[symyjym]

 

[BensGrandad]

You really ought to think about leaving this thread alone, mate. You've gone from moaning about "the politically correct brigade", to "not an innocent little girl" (several times), "mob rule" & a short diversion to suggesting the F.A should compensate clubs for taking on Evans.
You're making yourself look stupid at best, or frankly a nasty, ignorant old git

I am going to take your advice and steer clear of this but as a parting word I wouldnt want us to sign him irrespective of his ability but I wouldnt sign a petition or do anything to try to influence the club in their decision.

 

[aolstudios]

I am going to take your advice and steer clear of this but as a parting word I wouldnt want us to sign him irrespective of his ability but I wouldnt sign a petition or do anything to try to influence the club in their decision.

Good idea.
& as a parting word don't be coming back & claiming you haven't said any of the things that you have. Again

 

[martin tyler]

What I would struggle with in this case is that the rape is based on her being to intoxicates to consent. How does a jury then decide one is guilty and one is not? Obviously I've not heard the full facts and they were directed to come to separate outcomes but it seems very strange to me. Interesting to see how his appeal goes.
In terms of now i don t think I would want him at Brighton but I would leave it to the powers that be decide.
Likewise I think it's a matter for each club to make their own choice.

 

[Hillian1]

What I would struggle with in this case is that the rape is based on her being to intoxicates to consent. How does a jury then decide one is guilty and one is not? Obviously I've not heard the full facts and they were directed to come to separate outcomes but it seems very strange to me. Interesting to see how his appeal goes.
In terms of now i don t think I would want him at Brighton but I would leave it to the powers that be decide.
Likewise I think it's a matter for each club to make their own choice.

He won't get an appeal I think.