Ched Evans

[Bold Seagull]

Far too much hypocrisy about him, I wonder if he signs for Oldham and scores 30 goals in the next season how many clubs will be in for him ?

I don't think there is any hypocrisy from the football clubs. They are all weighing up the damage he'd do to revenue and sponsors. If in a years time that damage is thought to be minimal, sure they'll sign him. That won't be hypocrisy on their part, it will be a business decision like it is for all the clubs looking at him right now.

The hypocrisy will be from fans like me that if in a years time he starts banging goals in for the Albion, I start posting how all is forgiven and what a great player he is. That won't happen but it would be hypocritical!

 

[Bold Seagull]

What exactly is meant be "giving consent"? Does someone have to ask and have a verbal response of "Yes, you can"?

If so, I would bet over 50% of this posters on this thread are guilty of the same thing.

Just to help you along here, if someone is of sound state of mind, kissing you passionately on lips while gently massaging your manhood through your trousers, it's pretty nailed on your don't need a verbal 'yes'. I hope this helps you for any future encounters.

 

[Triggaaar]

Just had a thought, is this important? Why was there no DNA? Why didn't they ejaculate? Did they suddenly think they were doing something wrong and then left by the back entrance? Or perhaps i'm reading too much into it

I think you're reading too much into it, and you'd need to ask them why they didn't.

But to the inconsistency you have pointed out, don't you think that it is a pretty fundamental difference? The jury is supposed to believe consent was given, even though they both have different versions on how that consent was gained?

I think it was probably important in the case, that they don't both have an accurate account of what happened. Although the jury didn't have to believe consent was given, that only had to believe it wasn't beyond reasonable doubt that it had.

For the rehabilitation process to work means the person who committed the crime has to acknowledge he did wrong, something Evans has not done at all - even down to his plan of action that night.

What was his plan of action that night? It seems that he was going home in a taxi until he received a text from a friend, and then he changed his plan.

Hypothetically, if an ex-con tried to get a job in a company run by myself and failed to acknowledge past misdemeanours then i'd be asking questions of whether he could be trusted within the company or whether he'd repeat offend.

He/she'd have to tell you if you asked (depending on conviction and time passed etc), but not if you didn't.

 

[Wozza]

Oldham move is OFF, apparently...

 

[Wozza]

What exactly is meant be "giving consent"? Does someone have to ask and have a verbal response of "Yes, you can"?

Well, they have to be conscious for starters...

 

[Triggaaar]

My understanding of the process is that the CCRC are engaged if there is new evidence, whereas the Court of Appeal are engaged if it's believed there has been a miscarriage based on the original evidence but I am no lawyer.

I don't think that's quite right. I assume the Court of Appeal can also be also be used if there's significant new evidence. I think the CCRC is being used because there is a legal question about the directions the judge gave (that might not be totally right, but I don't think it's because of new evidence).

 

[drew]

You have to trust that 12 of your peers asked themselves exactly the same question, and debated this exact point, but based upon the evidence they heard they felt unanimously that it was beyond reasonable doubt he raped her.

Now I'm not saying juries don't get it wrong, but I'd rather trust their instinct and judgement having sat through all the legal proceedings and discussed it in a jury room, than believe in a doubt just because of what I've picked up in the press.

If we want to give opinions, I think they are both probably guilty. I think they were in control enough to realise they had a girl who was on her own, drunk, pissing in doorways, staggering around, who was easily impressionable. Sure she asked to get in a cab with MacDonald, but so what? It is about knowing when someone is drunk enough to have a great time and a lot of fun, and when someone is drunk enough beyond any kind of decision making or control. It's not that fine a line really. Most of us know even if completely drunk ourselves.

They knew what they were doing and were in complete control. They were able to text and organise, get mates outside etc. She woke up in a bed of her own urine alone and confused not knowing what had happened - if she remembered and was out for revenge or a pay off, why on earth wouldn't she mention she remembered being with a man at some point? or that two men might have been with her. Her statement doesn't appear to have any motivation whatsoever to implicate anyone. MacDonald in my opinion can consider himself a lucky boy for being acquitted. Both have serious issues with women, especially Evans who is supposedly in a loving relationship. Trust and respect, yeah right.

If juries had to pass a test before sitting on case then maybe you could trust them even more but they are selected at random from the electoral register. You hope that there is enough of a cross section to reach a proper verdict. Just to comment though, you go on about them being in control and able to text but wasn't she reported as being able send a text as well.

Christ. Is there reasonable doubt that she gave consent?

Not sure what you are implying. Are you saying that it is clear she didn't give consent and if so, why?

Just had a thought, is this important? Why was there no DNA? Why didn't they ejaculate? Did they suddenly think they were doing something wrong and then left by the back entrance? Or perhaps i'm reading too much into it

Exactly why do they need DNA? They never denied they had sex with her.

Well, I thought there were a couple of other inconsistencies, but to be fair I'm not sure what they were without looking. But to the inconsistency you have pointed out, don't you think that it is a pretty fundamental difference? The jury is supposed to believe consent was given, even though they both have different versions on how that consent was gained?

The relevant point is surely that they both believed she had given consent. The fact that they have two different perspectives could merely be down to something as simple as one or the other missing something that had been said!

For the rehabilitation process to work means the person who committed the crime has to acknowledge he did wrong, something Evans has not done at all - even down to his plan of action that night. Hypothetically, if an ex-con tried to get a job in a company run by myself and failed to acknowledge past misdemeanours then i'd be asking questions of whether he could be trusted within the company or whether he'd repeat offend.

Evans is also in a different situation to those in a mundane job as his profession is one within the public spotlight, as he is finding out now.

Where did this plan of action come out then? You make it sound like there was an elaborate coordinated plan. They were, like probably thousands of other blokes, and women, out on the lash.

As to you employing someone with a track record, you would probably do what all the clubs are doing. If your company was really struggling with sales and the applicant had a fantastic sales record and could turn the company round, would that make a difference? Employ him and keep your business running together with the jobs for all your other employees or don't employ him and go bust? As Bold Seagull has suggested, the clubs that have looked at this are not being hypocritical, they are, and have always been, looking at this from the business/footballing perspective. Clubs that don't need him can easily pontificate from a moral perspective but if they were in Oldhams shoes they might think differently. Look at Liverpool, they took a gamble with Suarez who had a track record for biting opponents (not as bad as rape obviously) and it very nearly paid off but they screwed it up a Selhurst last year. They didn't employ him through some altruistic values but just because they thought he could help them win the league.

I don't think there is any hypocrisy from the football clubs. They are all weighing up the damage he'd do to revenue and sponsors. If in a years time that damage is thought to be minimal, sure they'll sign him. That won't be hypocrisy on their part, it will be a business decision like it is for all the clubs looking at him right now.

The hypocrisy will be from fans like me that if in a years time he starts banging goals in for the Albion, I start posting how all is forgiven and what a great player he is. That won't happen but it would be hypocritical!

I agree, clubs are purely looking at whether the rewards for having him in the team outweigh the fall out from employing him. Some clubs have decided it isn't and Oldham appear to think that it is worth the risk.

 

[drew]

Well, they have to be conscious for starters...

Are you suggesting she wasn't conscious?

 

[viscentaye]

Oldham deal is off per Sky News

 

[Birdie Boy]

What was his plan of action that night? It seems that he was going home in a taxi until he received a text from a friend, and then he changed his plan.
He/she'd have to tell you if you asked (depending on conviction and time passed etc), but not if you didn't.

He was going to the police station where his brother was, due to another incident. He then received a text from MacDonald saying he had a bird. Evans then told the taxi driver to go to the hotel. This is what is bad from my point of view, morally. I still think that there is reasonable doubt about consent though..

 

[spring hall convert]

Shall we have a sweepstake on how long it takes another club to test the waters?

Personally, as I've said all along I feel his ongoing appeal is not commensurate with resuming his career. I know that isn't the case legally but the problem is that in the eyes of the law he is at present an unrepentant convicted rapist.

There are three other things I think he could have done to curry favour with the public that may have changed perception sufficiently.

1) Get that awful website down. Even if it ever did any good (highlighting the case when he was inside) any use it ever had has gone. It now just has the effect of making him look like a deeply horrible person.

2) Issued some statement of contrition surrounding the impression that his treatment of that girl, rape or no rape, gave of his general attitude towards women.

3) Apologised for the behaviour of the luntic fringe of the people purporting to be acting in his name. Distance himself from those that have broken the law in his name.

Unfortunately, the horse has bolted now. He has been so poorly advised, the last thing he needs to be seen as on his release from prison is arrogant and that is exactly what happened. He has become the poster boy for frustrated mysognyists.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Shall we have a sweepstake on how long it takes another club to test the waters?

Personally, as I've said all along I feel his ongoing appeal is not commensurate with resuming his career. I know that isn't the case legally but the problem is that in the eyes of the law he is at present an unrepentant convicted rapist.

There are three other things I think he could have done to curry favour with the public that may have changed perception sufficiently.

1) Get that awful website down. Even if it ever did any good (highlighting the case when he was inside) any use it ever had has gone. It now just has the effect of making him look like a deeply horrible person.

2) Issued some statement of contrition surrounding the impression that his treatment of that girl, rape or no rape, gave of his general attitude towards women.

3) Apologised for the behaviour of the luntic fringe of the people purporting to be acting in his name. Distance himself from those that have broken the law in his name.

Unfortunately, the horse has bolted now. He has been so poorly advised, the last thing he needs to be seen as on his release from prison is arrogant and that is exactly what happened. He has become the poster boy for frustrated mysognyists.

Spot on.

(And the only club I can imagine taking him, is Blackpool, who are desperate, and whose owner himself is an unrepentant convicted rapist)

 

[jimbob5]

Spot on.

(And the only club I can imagine taking him, is Blackpool, who are desperate, and whose owner himself is an unrepentant convicted rapist)

really?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

really?

Owen Oyston. Feel free to google.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Owen Oyston. Feel free to google.

Can you imagine how his life will be pulled apart in the press if he were to sign him? I bet he'll steer clear more than anyone else.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Shall we have a sweepstake on how long it takes another club to test the waters?

Personally, as I've said all along I feel his ongoing appeal is not commensurate with resuming his career. I know that isn't the case legally but the problem is that in the eyes of the law he is at present an unrepentant convicted rapist.

There are three other things I think he could have done to curry favour with the public that may have changed perception sufficiently.

1) Get that awful website down. Even if it ever did any good (highlighting the case when he was inside) any use it ever had has gone. It now just has the effect of making him look like a deeply horrible person.

2) Issued some statement of contrition surrounding the impression that his treatment of that girl, rape or no rape, gave of his general attitude towards women.

3) Apologised for the behaviour of the luntic fringe of the people purporting to be acting in his name. Distance himself from those that have broken the law in his name.

Unfortunately, the horse has bolted now. He has been so poorly advised, the last thing he needs to be seen as on his release from prison is arrogant and that is exactly what happened. He has become the poster boy for frustrated mysognyists.

This. Evans has made a complete pigs ear of getting his career back on track.....which leaves me to conclude he is either arrogant, stupid, ignorant or all three. Guilt or no guilt, there were a number of ways to approach playing again and he has chosen the wrong way.

 

[Triggaaar]

If we want to give opinions, I think they are both probably guilty. I think they were in control enough to realise they had a girl who was on her own, drunk, pissing in doorways, staggering around, who was easily impressionable.

They didn't know she had pissed in a doorway did they? Not that it matters, some people seem happy to do that sort of thing. And they didn't have a girl who was out on her own, only one of them was with that girl, and equally she had a boy who was out on his own. If she was easily impressionable, so what - not that they'd have known whether she was easily impressionable. She might not have been, she might know her own mind and enjoy pulling people, they certainly wouldn't know otherwise. You are jumping to a lot of conclusions.

Sure she asked to get in a cab with MacDonald, but so what? It is about knowing when someone is drunk enough to have a great time and a lot of fun, and when someone is drunk enough beyond any kind of decision making or control. It's not that fine a line really. Most of us know even if completely drunk ourselves.

If I had never been drunk, it would be difficult for me to imagine the loss of control she might have had. But that's just the start of it - the fact is, when drunk our experiences are all different. If I drink way too much, I'll eventually vomit and lose the ability to walk, but I never ever forget what happened. And I'm confident that if I was capable of walking, then I would be capable of consenting. But my friends are different - at a BBQ recently, one of my female friends lent back on her chair, the leg edged off the patio and she flipped backwards and tumbled down the bank. She didn't remember it happening at all, and while she was drunk, she wasn't that bad. So in this case the jury was faced with the difficult (or maybe impossible) task of guessing whether or not this girl was capable of consent.

They knew what they were doing and were in complete control. They were able to text and organise

Who's to say she didn't know what she was doing? She was able to text, without making a spelling mistake etc.

She woke up in a bed of her own urine alone and confused not knowing what had happened - if she remembered and was out for revenge or a pay off, why on earth wouldn't she mention she remembered being with a man at some point? or that two men might have been with her. Her statement doesn't appear to have any motivation whatsoever to implicate anyone.

I agree with you there. I believe her story that she didn't remember. But as above, some people do easily forget what they've done (and a friend of hers said she has forgotten on other occasions).

Both have serious issues with women, especially Evans who is supposedly in a loving relationship. Trust and respect, yeah right.

Agreed. Why Ched's girlfriend still wants to be with him I don't know. I presume she witnessed the trial? Maybe she thinks he's been wronged to the extent that it outweighs what a shit he was (and I don't mean cheating, I mean the manner of it).

He was going to the police station where his brother was, due to another incident. He then received a text from MacDonald saying he had a bird. Evans then told the taxi driver to go to the hotel. This is what is bad from my point of view, morally.

I don't think many would say that Ched's actions were moral. He may have been in the taxi on the way home when he got the text, I'm not sure. But I think 'Theatre of Trees' was implying that he has planned more, as he's suggesting Ched should apologise for his plan.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Well I can't say that what I am going to do is a boycott.

But for the time being the going / not going issue has been made very straightforward for me.



20 years ago I only had myself to think about. Maybe I would have put up with it, as abhorrent and inept as this whole business has been. It's hard for me to say. I put up with Lee Hughes I suppose.



Now I have three kids, aged 12, seven and two.

At the weekend I had to explain to my seven year old who Ched Evans was and what rape was. (Thanks for that Ched, Barry, Simon et al)

I had to tell our 12 year old what Ched Evans had done and what the atmosphere and attitude of (some) oldham and away fans would likely be at matches. Maybe I'm wrong about the 'Ched Evans, he f***s who he wants' chants, but I doubt it.



Neither of them want to go again. Their mum certainly doesn't want them to go again.



2015 is my 30th anniversary of watching Oldham, I've been all over the country and must have seen somewhere between 500 & 750 matches in that time. Am I going to put my young kids into that? No i'm not.



Who knows what happens next, but there must be a fair old chance that's three supporters of the future lost forever, never mind what happens to me.
.

Thankfully our supporters weren't put in this position.



The latest is that it seems Oldham have pulled back from the abyss. Sensible rethink in my opinion.

 

[Triggaaar]

This. Evans has made a complete pigs ear of getting his career back on track.....which leaves me to conclude he is either arrogant, stupid, ignorant or all three. Guilt or no guilt, there were a number of ways to approach playing again and he has chosen the wrong way.

Indeed.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Sky Sports News HQ ‏@SkySportsNewsHQ now6 seconds ago

Sky Sources: Oldham board members and sponsors received death threats which influenced their decision #SSNHQ