Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Does he deserve a second chance?
Is football, given its high wages, a privilege Evans no longer deserves?
But I'll always be loathing of any club who employs him. Horrible, horrible man.
Same goes for Marlon King.
Think the answer was ultimately no.
He can probably get a job doing something with Richard and Judy anyway.
then I don't see why not.
If he wasn't so unnervingly unrepentant about the whole thing, to the point that his website is dedicated to running a smear campaign attacking the victim.
If a club wants to employ him as a footballer then fine.
If my club wanted to employ him then I'd struggle to support him or cheer him on but again, fine.
He's not the first or last footballer to have done time inside for a heinous crime and then return to football (Lee Hughes, Luke McCormick etc).
It sure doesn't feel right though
once you have served the sentence handed down to you under the legal system. however, you only deserve the mercy of your peers and the chance to redeem yourself if you are willing to show a degree of humility and contrition. not something I'm convinced this vile cunt has done.
Ched Evans was convicted of rape (which in itself close to a miracle under the current system - the evidence against him would have been compelling) and yet he continues to refuse to accept any responsibility for his actions, show remorse for his victim or display any contrition at all.
As Steved says above, he (and his legal team) are actually continuing to publically call his victim a liar via his website and are still attempting to argue the most basic level rape defence - essentially, 'she was drunk so you can't believe anything she says' - "view the complainant entering the Premier Inn and judge for yourself" with a video, etc. It is fucking vile.
I always contrast this with the Ilombe Mboyo case (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24064975) purely on the basis that Mboyo accepted responsibility for what he had done and made amends with the victim and her family.
Given that Ched Evans has very clearly got some rehabilitation to do, I think its a perfectly valid argument that he shouldn't be allowed to play again until he has completed the rehabilitation process at the very least. I personally don't think he should be allowed to play again on the basis that he's obviously a horrible, horrible cunt.
a league 1 footballer earns no more than loads of bankers or whatever. the problem is having people cheering on, idolising and wearing shirts depicting the name of a convicted rapist
Does anyone know why Clayton McDonald wasn't found guilty as well?
According to the reporting I've read, both players admitted they'd had sex with the victim, but the verdict indicated she was too intoxicated to have been able to given consent. Not sure how that can apply to one and not the other?
because I baven't read any transcripts of evidence, but it's the only legitimate logical and legal explanation.
If you have sex with a drunk girl and she didnm't give consent or was not capable fo doing so, you are guilty of rape but ONLY IF you either KNEW she was so drunk as ot be not giving/. incapable of giving consent, or negligent as to whether or not that was the case.
The evidence must have show that CE either knew or ought to have known the woman was too smashed as to have that capacity but for whatever reason, the circumstances could not prove that CMcD was in a positoin to know. It may have been CE giving her drinks/ notcing that she couldn't stand/ whatever else, whereas CMcD may have been more passive and it's harer to rpove that he knew or ought to have known that consent might be an issue. That's all it can possibly be. (i.e CmcD's lawyer was better at showing that he did not have the requsite level of 'mens rea' for rape.)
The odd thing is though - and I certainly haven't read the full evidence either - is the reporting of the case suggests that CMcD was with her all evening, buying her drinks, brought her back to his room, etc. whereas CE barged into the room while they were having sex later on. Which is broadly the opposite scenario to the above.
I just wonder if CMcD is a bit, how shall I say... 'simple'? Some kind of evidence must have been led which exonerated him from having the level of ability to understand that she was not able to consent- whereas CE apparently did have this ability. Doesn't sit well with the facts as I know them, but it's all I cna think of. Might ask around the bar and see if I can find out. (or be less lazy and read the evidence).
I guess 'diminished capacity' or whatever the correct term is could be one explanation.
"That was the point of a joint trial in which separate verdicts were to be returned. It was open to the jury to consider that even if the complainant did not, in fact, consent to sexual intercourse with either of the two men, that in the light of his part in what happened -- the meeting in the street and so on -- McDonald may reasonably have believed that the complainant had consented to sexual activity with him, and at the same time concluded that the applicant (CE) knew perfectly well that she had not consented to sexual activity with him (the applicant)."
Good find, let me have a squint at this.
"She had a vague recollection of being in a kebab shop and of a large pizza box" and thought There but for the grace of God go I/....
The circumstances in which each of the two men came to be involved in the sexual activity was quite different; so indeed were the circumstances in which they left her. Those were matters entirely open to the jury; there was no inconsistency.
Seems like the judge - rightly, I assume - made it clear to the jury they had two separate decisions to make and they did so. It seems inconsistent to me, in light of the judge's judgment later statement about consent, but I guess we'll never find out exactly why they did so. Presumably the wildly different circumstances with both men leading up to the sex/rape was the main factor. It's all pretty grim to be honest, especially the subsequent Twitter stuff.
Yes, I should warn people that the description of what happened in that link is gross and upsetting.
so more responsibility was on him..?
The intoxication of an assailant is rarely a good defence. (which irks jurists, because it cuts across the whole idea of the subjective nature of 'intent'- but for public policy reasons tere must be an element of objectivity and 'what would the reaosnable man who wasn't shitfaed do in these circumstances' etc.
I'm all for rehabilitation but I just feel a bit uncomfortable with the idea that he can go back to a position where he is upheld as a role model for younger people etc.
That footballers are, or should be expected to be, role models for kids.
It's probably an unwanted part of the job. They want to use their talent, earn money, have a career, be celebrities etc.
They shouldn't be held to a higher account when they let themselves down or commit a horrendous crime just because parents or society has imposed this idea on them that they need to be perfect role models.
They know it is going to be a part of the job when they sign up for it, and so with it comes the responsibilities that this brings.
Why is it part of their job?
They shouldn't be role models because they have a pro contract at a football club, they should be role models when they lead by example in a manner which people/society think is appropriate or desirable.
Kids look up to footballers because they're good at football and that's cool. And because society in general does hold them up as role models - many products are promoted just by associating themselves, often tenuously, with footballers.
If you're saying that shouldn't be the case, then yeah, probably agree with you.
because the nature of their job is to perform in front of people who are willing them to do well / supporting them / have paid money to watch them. An inevitable byproduct of that is the fact that a lot of young, impressionable people will be part of this crowd, and will often follow their actions both on and off the pitch, especially if they are higher-profile.
Not saying they should be, but it'd be a pretty naive footballer who went in to a high-profile football career without understanding that the consequences of their actions reach further than just those directly affected..
It comes as part of the job, whether they like it or not.
There's something to be said that a lot of young footballers aren't given the support they need by their clubs to live up to that expectation, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to act as role models if they choose a career in football.
a lot of grown adults (many of them women) came out in support of evans, very publicly. a rapist being cheered on every week by thousands of people is quite a powerful symbolic gesture , not just for children. kinda difficult to imagine people doing that if they genuinely did believe he had raped someone then told barefaced lies about it and that as a result of his barefaced lies, his victim had to change her identity and move away from her home town to start a new life.
Once you've served your time then there shouldn't be barriers to finding work (however highly paid or high profile) other than in areas already legislated for eg the sex offenders register.
Leslie Grantham (Dirty Den, Eastenders) was one of the most prominent stars of the 80s and he was a convicted murderer.
can't remember the ins and outs of what he did but it was pretty fucking awful iirc
Was lucky anyone even spoke to him again after that.
what a cunt
'Wahlberg approached a middle-aged Vietnamese man on the street and, using a large wooden stick, knocked him unconscious while yelling a racial epithet. That same day, he also attacked another Vietnamese man, blinding him in one eye'
'He served 45 days of his sentence. In another incident, the 21-year-old Wahlberg fractured the jaw of a neighbor in an unprovoked attac'
would there be a case for arguing that his return to a glamorous career such as football would increase the risk of reoffending?
Not necessarily because of the money involved, but because of the status afforded to him. Again, I've not looked into the whole case in detail, but if he used his status to endear himself to his victim then should he be allowed to retain that status?
It can't do much for your fitness or footballing skills being locked up.
all they do is press ups/squats on the edge of their beds
he raped a teenager while his friend filmed it, is still serving his relatively short prison sentence, hasn't even acknowledged his crime and continues to publicly undermine the victim. this isn't even a tricky one. the woman was also named (this is obviously against the law) and subjected to a hate campaign on twitter. a section of the sheffield united fans organized a one minute round of applause in support of him during the trial. can't imagine this hasn't made the experience even more traumatic for her (and for other survivors of sexual violence, including sheffield united fans).
it's pretty clear that a lot of people still just don't believe that what he did is rape or should be classified as rape. this is rape culture. i think it's far more important that we try to change this culture so that victims are actually believed and supported. let's think about doing that first then worry about helping him get his life back together.
Rehabilitation of a convicted rapist can happen over a few years, the eradication of rape culture will take decades. It's not either/or, we can't eradicate rape culture and then afterwards help rehabilitate rapists (as this in itself would actually help perpetuate rape culture!). Both these things need to be worked on simultaneously. It's within everyone's interests that Ched Evans is rehabilitated and understands his crime. Convicted criminals have to be able to fit back into society, and have to be helped to do so.
This doesn't mean I think he should get his job back- I don't. But I don't like the right wing view that people who commit serious crimes should be cast out of society, or that trying to understand or rehabilitate an offender equates to saying "oh, poor you, your life has been ripped apart by this awful thing you've done, let's help you be happy again" etc. The prison sentence thing is neither here nor there, seeing as prison used as retribution rather than rehabilitation or protection (for society) is pointless anyway. I'm not sure what real difference a two and a half year sentence or a five year sentence or a ten year sentence would realistically/practically make, except allow people reading about it in newspapers feel a bit less outraged. You could argue that he should be in prison until he's rehabilitated, but I'd argue that a prison environment is clearly not a place in which a rapist (who doesn't even understand -wilfully or not- that he's done anything wrong) is going to reassess/understand the impact of his real world behaviour.
There should never have to be a compromise between helping and caring for the victims of crimes, and believing that people who have been convicted of crimes can be assimilated back into society without posing a threat. These concepts exist entirely separately.
Obviously I know that your post is talking about how the media/mass culture/'people' in general have been discussing the Ched Evans case, and how the focus is on him rather than the hate campaign orchestrated against the victim (which is fucking awful, and which I didn't actually know about, which proves your point). This post is just inspired by your post, it's not an attack on it at all.
Many people in this thread think footballers are role models to children. Supporters also literally excessively revere their team's players.
Should the PFA consider incorporating membership criteria that would (hell)ban serious offenders?
The FA could ban players if they're on the sex offenders register - as Evans is.
Wouldn't want him playing for my club, but there's absolutely no argument that he shouldn't be entitled to earn a living.
don't see why that's good enough for me but not good enough for ched evans. does he have more rights because he used to be a professional footballer?
but now that his sentence has been served he has a right to pursue a career of his choosing, irrespective of how bad his crime was or how little remorse he's shown.
Maybe he won't find an employer, who knows.
He may be a grade a shitbag and his sentence may have been far too lenient and yes there is a massive problem with rape culture but he does have the right to seek employment in a highly paid and public environment.
I might find this distasteful just like I would if he was a murderer who'd got a shamefully light sentence but it's a really dangerous precedent to treat someone as a second class citizen once they've served their sentence.
if the justice system was in any way adequate or followed principles of restorative justice. but in reality, our justice system can be used by people like ched evans to draw on and promote the most horrendous, patriarchal values. in this case, the victim is in a worse position than before and the rape apologists are still there and apprently emboldened. cause our justice system doesn't conceptualize violence as social problem rooted in overlapping systems of oppression, rape culture, or anything like that. it just sees the exceptions. R v unlucky enough to get caught.
i don't think criminals should be treated as second class citizens either. i think prisoners should get the vote, for example. most people in society commit 'crimes', they're just not necessarily criminalized. wealthy elites can use law as an instrument to serve their interests. but poor people are criminalized and find it difficult to get out of cycles of offending. so policies which discriminate against convicted criminals often just lead to more offending, more poverty and entrenched cycles of criminality. etc. etc.
however, as i will reiterate, this isn't about ensuring that ched evans lives in poverty. (i'm not even really in favour of a prison sentence, fairly ambivalent about it.) it's about realizing that whatever happens to him has far wider implications, beyond his own individualized circumstances. i think if we're talking about what's better, morally and politically, the ends of justice are only served when every injustice is brought into consideration. cause every single instance of sexual violence - including the majority that go unreported or are 'no-crimed', dismissed by police or the cps or that fail to convince a jury - is really an injustice. our justice system decouples these cases and treats them in a false state of isolation. imo a theory of justice should be concerned with preventing injustice and even transcending the need for criminal sanctions altogether. this would mean looking to the wider implications of ched evans regaining his lucrative, glamorous and powerful status as a footballer. don't think a feminist theory of justice could argue for anything else tbh.
I would prefer to see longer sentences more befitting the crime. Then his return to football might be a physical impossibility anyway.
I'm just uncomfortable with the notion that punishment extends beyond the actual sentence. Even though on a gut level I agree with pretty much everything you're saying.
I know that you're not saying he should live in poverty but you're saying he should have restrictions placed on him after his sentence (other than those relating to the sex offenders register) and that just seems wrong to me.
Not more wrong than what he did and not more wrong than his apparent lack of repentance etc but still wrong.
for the actual crime I believe that someone's actual lack of contrition and lack of evident rehabilitation should be considered before they're released in any case.
And I'm all for the notion of restorative justice.
society pretty much justifies rape and blames the victim not the perpetrator (women are responsible for not getting raped; shouldn't wear certain clothes; shouldn't talk to strangers; shouldn't get too drunk; shouldn't flirt; shouldn't have any kind of sexual contact if they want to reserve the right to later say 'no'; shouldn't be out in public at night; shouldn't travel alone; shouldn't be alone with men... oh and if none of these things apply and you get raped by your partner then that's not actually rape anyway. also you're probably lying.) only once in a while does the criminal justice system send the odd person to prison for a couple of years. that's not adequate and it's difficult to see what it achieves at all.
imposing restrictions on him in addition to or 'after' his sentence is kinda irrelevant to me since im pretty much rejecting his prison sentence as a useful or adequate measure for achieving genuine justice. i don't really get what you think is so special about his 'actual sentence' that means we should draw a line under it and basically consider his conviction spent? it's hardly unusual for ex-offenders to have restrictions imposed on them upon release. happens for plenty of other people too.
i'm not really sure what your argument is other than the idea makes you uncomfortable and it seems wrong.
doesn't actually provide any moral justification for it...
they're social constructed within particular social, cultural and intellectual contexts.
not that it matters cause my point still stands - just saying someone has a 'right' to something doesn't provide any justification for it. where does this 'right' for him to continue playing football come from? especially if you're saying it's 'arbitrary'? why defend it then?
Couldn't you question a person's right not to be raped?
i'm not being a total nihilist or saying rights don't exist and that people can do whatever they want, or collapsing everything into a morally relativistic inertia. if that's what you mean by 'going down this road'.
i think it's pretty easy to provide a moral justification for saying that rape is bad, even without using the interpretive framework of 'rights'. i hope you can agree...
But although it doesn't trump it, I'd say it's easy to argue that someone shouldn't be punished beyond whatever punishment society deems fit for a criminal act as well.
the culture is woefully out of touch.
I'd like to have seen him banged up for longer and systematically reeducated. And for these issues to be part of the education system in general.
I don't want to continue the argument because I'm not convinced that we're fundamentally at odds and because like many men on here I've found your posts instructive and compelling.
Let's leave it here.
(your reply kinda sounds like we've had a massive fall out or something... apologies if it seemed i was being really argumentative)
I'll probably end up agreeing with you anyway. I normally do.
No apology required. :)
A career entirely of his choosing? No. Obviously nobody wants ex-offenders sitting unemployed for the rest of their lives, but someone as remorseless as this, who may be at high risk of re-offending, should probably not be given the opportunity to go back to football. Not without serious consideration to the conditions of his release.
I don't think it is a big ask for Sheffield Utd to not have a rapist playing for them.
It wasn't a decision based on ethics.
They got offered lots of money and the player wanted to leave to sign for a bigger, better club in a nicer country for lots more money. There was absolutely no suggestion Liverpool decided to sell for any moral reason, as much as any Liverpool fan would like to think otherwise..
Do think it would be nice if Sheffield United didn't offer Evans a contract, like. If i supported that club i'd quite like whoever was in charge to make the decision rather than it being one based on 'footballing reasons'.
they didn't want him being booed all the time and he wanted to get out as he knew he couldn't handle it.
He's done his time. He should be free to choose whatever line of work he wishes to return to. His profession is as a professional footballer and I think placing barriers after the serving of his sentence to prevent him from working in that profession again is unwarranted.
That said, would I want him at my club? No. Complete scumbag who's showed no remorse for his crimes.
I did think about making the case for the FA to come out and say that he should admit guilt and the terrible impact of his crime on the victim before being allowed to play again, but I'm not sure how that could work.
I'm not sure he should be playing again even if consent somehow had been proven. The cold facts of what they were doing are unforgivable enough.
They went out on the prowl specifically looking for a drunk woman to have sex with, maintaining radio contact so they could tip each other off and with a hotel room on standby. And then fact that they left just left her drunk, alone and naked in the hotel room once they were done. Is that really someone you'd want on your team or even be able to look straight in the eye ?
Even without all the subsequent stuff (his website and lack of remorse etc. ...)
So it's a no for me.
That isn't in itself a crime. You can be drunk and give consent to sex.
notwithstanding the fact that someone can be drunk and still give consent, the act of actually going about looking for drunk women to have sex with, then just abandon in an unfamiliar hotel room, is still a really shit thing to do.
he(?) says that he didn't believe the attack was premeditated, which is what the prosecution claimed.
I'm not particularly convinced by the fact that because McDonald had a hotel room when visiting a friend, and because he text Evans saying 'got a bird', that you can infer that they were 'on the prowl looking for a drunk woman to have sex with'. They may well have been, it's obviously a strong possibility, but let's try and be factual.
Agree that it is a really shit thing to do.
Whether or not they got the hotel room specifically for the purpose of 'getting a bird' is ambiguous (ish), but the fact that Evans went to the hotel room having been invited by his mate to have sex with 'a bird' and then raped her on arrival suggests that from the moment he got the text he planned to go to the hotel room and have sex with whoever was there, regardless of whether they consented. If that doesn't constitute pre-meditated rape I'm not sure where the line is drawn.
I'm just trying to go from the facts reported in sentencing remarks. The judge listened to everything and didn't believe it to be pre-meditated rape.
It's easy to put together the picture of them being 'prowling all night for a drunk woman to have sex with'. But I guess influenced by the sadly common experience of ladz on a night out in town.
Maybe the subtlety in saying 'got a bird' rather than 'with a bird' or something is what swings it, but I'm not sure.
It's the 'regardless of whether or not they consented' which is the hard bit to prove, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that that was Evans' intention before getting to the room.
EVEN if you ignore that there was an actual conviction, because let's face it there is clearly a very fine line there. If you JUST read the cold facts as in the link Elaina provided, there is no doubt that these people behaved appallingly.
Yeah "on the prowl" is inflammatory language but the cap fits so....
fwiw - I've been a twenty-something male out "on the pull" (with admittedly very spotty success) and that was a very very different thing to what is described above.
It's now up to each individual team and their fans whether they'll accept him - unfortunately, a couple of good performances is all it will take to clear his name in their eyes. A lot of sports fans seem to be able to make connections to athletes they enjoy watching without knowing the first thing about them as people - call it the Pistorius effect.
with the message "Sign up and free Chedwyn" and I have no idea if he's joking or not :/
Very :/ tho
this would be a heck of a tricky issue
gut instinct is to say no, but gut instincts in a very general sense don't tend to be well thought through.
how do you ban someone from an occupation? well, thanks to things like CRB checks, children and vulnerable people and the like are to a point protected from would-be criminals. so, if Ched Evans had been a teacher, as far as i can tell it's a fair shout to say he wouldn't be a teacher in future.
so the principle's there, but how do you apply that to football? someone suggested it's the "because he'd be a role model" thing, and yeah, it's kinda regretful that footballers are role models to kids only for the reason that they're good at football. but then, acting and other entertainment industries aren't immune, someone mentioned Mark Wahlberg above, and everyone knows about Chris Brown's conviction. and yet.
and then there's the issue of, ok, say he's not allowed to be a professional footballer, well, he could end up an amateur, playing in say the 8th tier, and one day his club get to the FA Cup first round, against a team from League One, and he plays and scores a winner. as an amateur. that's not exactly desirable given what's already happened.
tricky, isn't it? well, it's not because he's an unrepentant fuckwad and football clubs should have the moral integrity not to pay him, but football isn't exactly a sport drowning in moral integrity. i remember being super-twitchy about people like Luke McCormick, Marlon King, Lee Hughes coming back and playing. Ched Evans is a good step further than those
Short length of sentence feels jarring (but is a separate issue), but I'm all for rehabilitation and second chances.
It feels like this could have been used as a platform to make a very public point against lad culture if Ched had come out and admitted his crime and shown he was a changed man - maybe with his honesty helping a few other young, spoilt footballers make the same (disgusting) mistake.
Obviously his complete lack of repentance and continued campaign to sully the poor lass and clear his name means the above chance has been missed. I think the role model argument does hold valid here. Any club which employs him does so knowing he is in a role model position and has a civic duty to make a stand against rape. Can't see this happening sadly.
IMO shows how broken the system of punishment and mindless reintegration to society is. What a dick.
but isn't rehabilitated. The time is served with the aim of being rehabilitated and learning, and he hasn't. Until he is repentant and admits to the horrendous nature of his actions and makes steps to correct it, then why should he be able to return to a very enjoyable job with good wages?
I think he should only be allowed to return if he accepts a weekly wage of what someone who is on benefits is expected to live on, with the rest of his wage donated to victim support charities.
In time, if it becomes apparent that he shows real remorse and feels guilty for his actions, then it can be revisited and reviewed, but there would have to be some real significant evidence, given his actions since. Otherwise, he is welcome to go and try and get the kind of jobs that other former offenders would.
that you can continue to punish someone who fundamentally believes they are innocent.
That said - Evans is despicable, shows no remorse for any of his actions that night, and that website is disgusting.
Good that it's making us think about the various implications.
But like DD said above it would be great if the focus could also be on changing the culture we have.
and it's pretty evident that he is - so unless we make the effort to rehabilitate, then we are just giving him a slap on the wrist and allowing him to continue as before.
Given that other people convicted, even if they show remorse and regret and try to make amends, will struggle to find work afterwards - which you could see as continued punishment - It isn't really 'fair' that he could walk straight back into a very favourable job with good salary, despite no evidence of rehabilitation.
a free Ninja Turtles frisbee for EVERY reader!
Of course he should be employable. And of course the club would be mad to offer him a contract.
Rape is a crime where ... I feel our concept of a prison sentence isn't very helpful. I would rather have the victim given a series of options and left to decide the punishment:
- long prison sentence
- short prison sentence combined with an extra option from the rest of the list
- forced wearing of "I'm a rapist" brand clothing for a long long time.
- branding around the penal area
- labour camp
- no prison sentence but reporting to the stocks in the city centre to have tomatoes thrown at them for a year.
And so on. Needs more thought, but the act of the victim having power over the decision seems an important psychological step for someone who had control exerted so devastatingly over them.
Not a crime that I'm particularly interested in rehabilitating. Like murder, it's a quite black and white mistake.
I understand he was found guilty by the court, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was a correct decision. I've only done a limited amount of reading, so please correct me if I am wrong, but his case appears to be that the woman consented, and that she was not so drunk that she was unable to consent.
Whilst his actions may not be shining examples of gentlemanly behaviour, is it not possible that his version of events is correct? And if so, isn't it perfectly natural that he would be fighting to clear his name, as opposed to demonstrating remorse?
before you waste any more of your time giving an opinion. clearly, the court found that the woman had not consented to sex with him.
with how McDonald wasn't found guilty as well.
Pretty grim reading though
How about you begin by asking yourself what that means for the victim if you're suggesting he's innocent. Are you actually saying you think she's lying, that she had sex with two guys and afterwards thought she'd just claim they raped her?
Look at how enriched her life has become as a result of reporting it.Who wouldn't want a piece of that pie?
Brutally depressing stuff.
But, you know, not sure it can take that much humour around it. :(
any notion that women are choosing to make up rape complaints for their own benefit is, given the volume of horrendous shit she's taken as a direct result of speaking out. Didn't mean to be crass, but it strikes me the only way to tackle such a stupid opinion is to take the piss out of it.
the way consent is defined. it sounds like Evans doesn't quite get it either. Worryingly, I think there are a lot of people like you and Evans who are ignorant of this, There is no excuse. If you even vaguely up to speed on current affairs, you will KNOW that in this country, consent must be freely given. Whilst it is possible to be very drunk and give consent, it is also possible for tjhere to come a point at which the law says 'you couldn't possibly have had to capacity to make this choice freely', in which case the presumption is against consent unless the woman maintains that she did consent.
maybe schools need to do more to educate, but I ifnd it terrifying that so many people can't get their heads around this very basic concept.
From a legal perspective, the news that the Ched Evans conviction has been fast tracked through to a legal watchdog that monitors alleged miscarriages of justice is interesting. Although the fact his girlfriends dad is a multi millionaire and has funded high profile barristers/Private investigators does leave a nasty taste.
What a cesspit
that he was with before or after he committed this rape? (although I'm not sure what is worse really- to support someone who has raped somebody whilst in a relatoinship with you, or to start a relationship with a convicted rapist. I... mind boggles.)
as I am sure I read a report which said she stood by him throughout
is cheating on his girlfriend.
not only did he bang someody behind her back, he also did so without her consent, I don't understand how some people can look themselves straight in the eye in the mirror.
like are they actually going about assuming people have consented to things when they're in semi-comatose states? very disturbing.
If I woke up in a hotel room with no memory of the previous night (or even where I was) and a couple of footballers told me I had consented to be fucked by them, I might want to dispute that fairly robustly. So are they either saying she was lying, or they are *telling* her she consented and she should just keep quiet? And does the same go for everyone in the same situation?
which seemed rather unfair to me, so please don't ban me again. I understand that you ban people who post racist, sexist, etc material, but I haven't done any of these things, and won't be doing so.
Please also don't assume that I'm saying things that I haven't actually said. I'm reasonably well versed about how consent is defined, and I'm not trolling.
DarwinDude - you say that the court clearly found that she did not consent. I agree with you, that is the only possible conclusion to draw from the guilty verdict. This non consent could be in the form of not consenting (saying no, or simply not saying yes), or could be in the form of being so drunk that she was unable to give consent. I don't know the specific findings of the court with regards to that point - perhaps someone could enlighten me if you do.
UP - again, I fully understand that it is possible to be in a state, through alcohol or otherwise, where you are unable to give consent.
In this situation, he is claiming that she consented, and that she was in a state to be able to consent. She is claiming that she didn't consent, or that she was unable to consent.
My point is that if you accept her version of events, then he appears to be someone who has shown no remorse, no efforts to be rehabilitated, and therefore you may judge him more harshly. However, if you accept his version of events, then isn't it natural for him to fight for what he sees as justice, rather than remorse for a crime that he feels he hasn't committed?
If the evidence was 100% bulletproof that he was guilty, then I understand why everyone would come to the same conclusion. I was querying what evidence people are basing this opinion on, because I haven't seen anything that makes me certain that her version of events is correct and his is not. Again, I haven't read every word of evidence, so I may well be missing things.
I have since had a chance to read all of the text on the link earlier, and it's clear that the jury decided that in their opinion, she was too drunk to be able to give valid consent, but it's not clear what evidence this was based on.
Again, please do not ban me. I'm not trying to be deliberately provocative, and clearly Ched seems like a fairly awful character. I have just noticed a lot of people stating throughout the thread that it was clear that he was guilty, and to me it is not that clear cut, as it ultimately seems to have come down to a judgement call of the jury. This is what makes me open to considering Ched's viewpoint and campaign to clear his name.
how people seek to really *really* analyse the grey areas which exist in rape cases, but seem happy to overlook them for every single other crime for which someone is convicted.
Case in point, you don't hear anyone going `Well... we don't know that Ian Huntley actually murdered those girls do we?! He was the only one there and he said they died by accident so it's not that clear cut is it?!?!?!`
Just shows the issues with Rape Culture that DD talks about up there. Or we could just go with your analysis and let loads more (emphasis on the word `more` there) rapists go free because of our crazy suspension of disbelief on proof/balance of probabilities.
In short - you're a bozo.
Doesn't seem to be a troll at all, just someone with a opposing view to the majority. Do we ban those people now?
but no, just thought it was funny with the amount of pleading "don't ban me" stuff in there
whoever it was, I take my hat off to this level of mod griefing.
(given the multiple account history and previous ban I would probably have done the same)
So I guess that would lend itself to believe the person was a pain
But I thought this particular post wasn't worthy of a ban.
I was originally funky_badger, then I was banned for the only post in this thread. I then signed up as fb__, and was banned for the only post in this thread. I'm now using this account. So yeah, I have multiple accounts, but only because you keep banning me for no good reason!
I don't know if un-banning is possible, but if so, can a mod please re-instate the funky_badger account.
and that a jury found him guilty, I really can't see why you could think of "listening to his side of his story".
but really silly that they got banned for this.
that he was given such a leniet sentence in the first place which has allowed him to be out and able to take up his career again. Regardless of rehabilitation/time served etc... he was still only given 5yrs, served 2 for violating/humiliating and raping a drunk 19yr old girl. 5yrs. Her life is ruined (hopefully she is a strong woman and can overcome this) and her justice is to have it all rubbed in her face like she means even less than the night HE made the choice to rape her. I honestly don't give a toss if Chad Evens gets his career back. I care that the victim gets her life back.
The range of sentence for this type of rape, according to the current guideline, is between 4 and 8 years. And that is *this type of rape* which is missing certain aggravating features. He didn't get off lightly in te sense that the judge didn';t go for the lowest end of teh spectrum, but it is certainly in the low-medium part of the range. he tried to have it dropped to 4 years on appeal which was knocked back.
the victim was passed out at the time so lessened the chance for her to fight back.
Just goes to show not only is he a rapist, he's a cowardly one at that.
the fact that no overt physical force was used* is cited as being- if not quite a factor in mitigation- at the very least a non-aggravating factor (the disinction is a very fine one). This is used as a justificatoin for the snetence not being in the next category up.
However if like me you believe that there is no such thing as violent rape (because in my view, what could be more violent can putting your penis into the body of a helpless person) then this whole lack of aggravatoin and the lower sentence it hands out feels so wrong.
but i don't make the law, not yet anyway.
can understand the pain of being punched or held down, but have no real understanding of what it would be like to be penetrated against their will?
I totally agree that it is such an aggressive act that whatever else happens around it is kind of circumstantial in terms of how it should be judged.
And will be historical. remmebr, up until 1991 thewre was no such crime as spousal rape in England, so you could have sex with your wife any way you liked without her ocnsent and it could not be tried bceause it sdidnd't exist in law as a crime (we criminlalised it in the early 80s in scotland.)
Date rape, and the advancement of sedating drugs being used in alcohol etc as a way of taking advantage of women 9and in some cases men) is also a phemonemon largely of our generaton.
Sexual offences law has come a long way in my lifetime, but there are tsill a hell of a lot of people out there who can only think of it in the ocntext of a women being jumped on by a strabger in an alley, and that so long as you don't take shortcuts home late at night you are immune to the risk of rape.
no such thing as non-violent rape. Obviously.
on the one hand mentions how she walked STEADILY from the taxi to the hotel according to cctv, then goes on to say how she was SO IRRESPONSIBLY DRUNK that she lost her handbag, thought it was in the taxi but it wasnt, put a takeaway pizza down and forgot it and then came back to pick it up and was slurring to the hotel receptionist.
So definitely not drugged, nope. Just really really drunk... b... but not so drunk as to not be able to consent... cos she could, y'know, walk and stuff.
Drunk/Irresponsibly Drunk/Laying on the bed butt naked with legs apart NONE OF THAT MATTERS IF THERE WASN'T CONSENT! To try and justify that it was HER responsibility and SHE shouldn't have been either drunk or not drunk HE wasn't. If he really was a decent guy, he would have seen she wasn't in any fit state and HE should have made the choice to curb his libido for a night and left her alone.
rape is about power, not sexual gratification or libido.
I was basing that comment on his website saying that she was really drunk (his justifying that it was consentual).
like fine upstanding gentlemen, particularly the fact that for people who thought the encounter was consensual they seemed like they were in a hurry to get out of there afterwards and leave her in the hotel room.
They think that a girl who is prepared to have casual sex with them is worthless. They're completely unable to respect a sexually autonomous woman, she's just a slag to them. Hence their friends filming them through the window.
This is just part of the re-education these men need.
There is a link to a video of her walking into the hotel so you can "judge for yourself" how drunk she was ffs!
should have locked him up until his talent has diminished and he can't even play footy cause he's an old decrepit 35 year old
(and probably won't understand the answer to).
This website about how he's dead innocent and that - now that the trial is over and he's been found guilty, aren't all these accusations from him and his pals that the victim was lying technically libellous? No? Or defamation of character at the very least. What are the rules for this sort of thing?
but his website is very vague and suggestive rather than just saying "she lied". Stuff like posting the deleted twitter posts where she talked of payouts (5 months after the incident), or "see for yourself how drunk she was, click here" etc.
Good for her - I think United's 'thin end of the wedge' approach to getting him back in is beyond cowardly.
...to re-employ (or consider re-employing) someone who, when previously in your employment, was convicted of rape. It must be stunningly rare for employers to entertain it.
...I can just about accept another club signing him, and taking a punt on his reformed character and `seeing the potential for good` in him and whatever else but... The same club who he was playing for while he got convicted for rape saying `welcome back son`? Nah I can't get my head around that.
She was a terrible witness on the Moral Maze re this very subject recently though.
Very difficult for anyone to actually get into the moral nitty gritty of what they're talking about, because a) most people's views are so entrenched on issues they don't actually bother engaging with the lines of questioning they receive and b) arguments end up going round circular cul-de-sacs in which there are no actual answers to be uncovered.
Do wish that Melanie Phillips didn't have such batshit views on stuff though - she's a very persuasive debater.
I think he's done a good job of rehabilitating himself over the years.
Think I'll stick with it for a few more, but ignore it when he's on.
He's a great example of how a lot of front line politicians tend to actually be far better post-retirement, when they don't feel obliged to take the party line on every possible occasion.
and unable to sleep.
on this particular topic? er...
Didn't realise that the PFA had got involved to allow him to train again. Struggling to understand the continued resistance from United to the idea that it's not acceptable - always weird when organisations plough on relentlessly through PR disasters, there must be someone at the club who isn't thick.
and this is just after him training and a few possibilities of him returning. I can't see it happening as few people or companies are going to stick with them if he does. It isn't worth it for an average footballer who has been out of action for nearly 3 years.
Can they really not just find another striker
hasn't led the club to say they won't employ him. Usually football's morality goes where the chequebook leads.
I think it'll be a hollow victory if United back down but only for financial/reputational reasons, but the fact that they seem to be conducting their own bizarre moral campaign is utterly baffling.
to their "fans" and the Ched fan club it looks like they tried to support him but were forced to back down; to others they didn't allow him back to play so they are happy too. Why they would want to pander to the "Ched is innocent" crowd I am unsure.
the rest would probably follow.
but were criticised by Marlon King for not supporting him after his conviction(s).
I appreciate there is always going to be some element of TU support for convicted employees, but Gordon Taylor is a complete clown.
Should have stepped down years ago.
In the past people only had the hate mail option via the post and therefore it took more effort to look up someone's address and you needed an envelope, stamp etc.
It's so much easier to act on your cunt instincts now.
Kathryn Ryan was talking about the things that people send her via social media, in a podcast with Richard Herring recently. She said that guys trying to trick her into watching Vines of them cumming was at the better end of the abuse she receives.
Head legal counsel for the PFA of Ireland, Stuart Gilhooly, on a PFA blog post (since taken down, but which Gilhooly has subsequently confirmed he stands by) in which he actually puts Evans in the same bracket as the Birmingham Six:
Also includes this beaut [on drunken consent]:
"There is little point in trying to dissect the legal niceties of this very complex issue but suffice to say that Ched Evans has a very arguable case that he is the victim of a miscarriage of justice. If having sex with a drunk woman is rape then thousands of men are guilty of rape every day."
Which I think basically equates to: "let's not bother too much with all this complex 'legal' stuff, but essentially if a woman has had something to drink, there is no possibility that she can ever be 'properly' raped".
Lovely closer too:
"From Jessica Ennis-Hill to Charlie Webster and pretty much every media commentator who has waded into this mire, the horses most of these pundits have mounted are so high, they’ll need a parachute to get down. When sanctimony takes over, there is rarely any real room for serious debate."
Actually can't believe that this guy holds the position that he does. Also don't see why a representative of the PFA of Ireland should even need to comment on an English footballer's case, tbh
Also this genius on BBC Radio Norfolk:
Highlights at the bottom of the article. In an ideal world the publicity surrounding the case would actually lead to a better discourse of rape and the surrounding issues, but the mouth breathers in the comments section of that article suggest this is a very long way off. Pretty depressing all round
what a fucking idiot
This sort of stuff would make the news more often if anyone listened to local radio.
"Dave and Sue are both 55. Sue is a school secretary, while Dave is a self-employed plumber. They are both divorcees with grown-up children. The characters shop at Asda and wear casual clothes. The couple have little interest in high culture or politics and see the world as "a dangerous and depressing place". They hope that radio will be "something that will cheer them up and make them laugh"."
There's a show on Saturday nights on Radio Norfolk where old folk are pretty much invited to phone in and air their antiquated, right wing, racist views.
Sheff United have stopped him from training with them
Terrible statement by the club:
about stuff being 'well written' but that doesn't inspire muh confidence. makes it look like they don't appreciate the gravity of the situation and are even siding with him.
makes them sound like they believe he's innocent - that whole civil appeals thing section - just appalling, like they're trying to use this statement to highlight some kind of miscarriage of justice
By 'siding with him' I meant they were taking his side.
I just meant what you said but to the degree that they even seem to hint that they believe he will be vindicated on appeal
the way its been reported on the bbc news this morning and on the website.. kind of skips this and it makes sheff utd look better than they are being :/
it's a very ambiguous statement in certain respects and you can read anything you like into it. My first reaction was a bit *splutter* OUTRAGE! but on re-reading it you can infer whatever.
It's getting to the stage where I'd have more respect for them if they actually just came out and said "we don't think he did it, we're offering him a new contract.". They can't even stick to their principles when they're being bastards.
that not a single person at the club was able to say "Hang on a mintue... people might not see this the same way we do" and even weirder that even now they don't seem to be able to understand the wider reaction and still just dismiss it more or less entirely as "mob justice".
It's hardly as if the arguments haven't been widely spread lucidly as well.
despite our best efforts to try and sidle him in quietly. Fuck dignity let's see them toys fly
Also enjoy how he describes the club's patreons as being ATTACKED rather than, um, independently withdrawing their support as a matter of principle.
on its sponsors
I was impressed with the speed that Premier Range moved when Mackay was appointed at Wigan - most businesses would have sat on it for at least half a week to judge the mood before issuing any statement.
Fair play - they're a struggling L2 team and the kind of club who'd perhaps be tempted by taking a gamble on a 'decent striker'.
This bloke http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/16/wrongly-jailed-victor-nealon-free-streets-postman basically got an extra 10 years in jail for protesting his innocence. Why was Ched Evans allowed out early?
Evans got a determinate sentence, as his crime wasn't considered as serious as the other one. (http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/sentencing/determinate-prison-sentences.htm) 4 years max, therefore was out on 2 years on licence. The postman was given a life sentence with a minimum term, meaning that to be eligible for parole he'd need good behaviour, and due to his denials of guilt he wasn't considered for parole
I'd assumed the good behaviour/denial of guilt thing was for all sentences.
Manager Ronnie Moore said "If there is a chance he might come here, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't....He has made a mistake and maybe he hasn't apologised in the right way - and I know he has an appeal case pending - but if he gets on the park, he would go a long way to getting us out of trouble."
he won't be playing for them.
So the club at the very bottom of the Football League have sacked him off as well. Looks like his only chance of ever playing again (in this country at least) will be to successfully appeal against the conviction.
Tried to sign for somewhere in Malta but not allowed abroad. (Was quite shocked to read that incidents of rape aren't recorded there). Sponsors threatening to pull out if Oldham sign him. Various public figures speaking out against it and looks like it won't happen.
Genuinely intrigued how it's all going to end. Getting a bit fed up of news coverage mentioning that he thinks he's innocent for the sake of 'balance'.
is vox-popping a woman who says "he's served his time" and then a man who says "he's a bad role model for kids".
like "shall we risk tarnishing the reputation of our club by even considering this guy?" good?
not good enough to play in either of the top 2 tiers by a long way. but for a team fighting relegation in lower leagues he could easily be the difference between staying up and going down
considering he hasn't played professional football for 3 years or so I imagine he'd struggle at his former level. Not that it matters.
but yeah, totally beside the point.
But at League 1 level he's very good. Think he scored something like 25 goals the season that he got jailed, and he'd scored a reasonable amount in previous years in the Championship. And even his lack of match sharpness is counter-balanced by the fact that as he's in his mid-twenties he's got plenty of years, potentially at his peak, left in him. I'd imagine he'd be playing for a top half of the Championship as a minimum if all this hadn't happened.
As I said it's completely not the point, but in a pure footballing sense he's undoubtedly a good player. Arguably makes it more depressing actually, that clubs are considering overlooking all the negatives around him as a result of his footballing value (similar with Mackay at Wigan.)
And the rest.
and, more importantly, the horrific smear-y way in which he's trying to do it, are what makes it a far easier thing to judge.
And more worryingly, the judge for yourself video and the deleted tweets are exactly the type of non-evidence that football fans already feeling slightly sympathetic to Evans latch onto in an attempt to defend him (judging from various football forums, article comments and the like, anyway.)
if he'd accepted his guilt and used his position of fame to become an active voice for change and education for young men in their attitudes towards women and consent, then it would be a totally different conversation. As it stands, he can fuck right off immediately
without putting the words 'convicted rapist' before it now.
so much misogyny and ignorance banded around.
Also, there seems to be a backlash-backlash growing. People calling the actions of Oldham fans and Oldham sponsors a witch-hunt (which is ironic seeing as what happened to the victim).
I've definitely changed from my original stance on this thread - wouldn't want him anywhere near my club and think it's about time people called football out for it's complete lack of a moral compass.
Is there any idea when the appeal might be concluded? Fed up with people holding onto that to support their view that Evans is innocent and somehow the jury got it completely wrong.
always easy to say "that's ages" but i guess there's a lot of work behind the scenes.
Er...people do this all the time. Well, OK they do this all the time in smug Guardian articles.
according to the guardian
hence getting a decent cut price striker. I wonder what they will do when inevitably big sponsors pull out. And when he gets stuff chucked at him every game.
Not only is he happy to have his daughter date a convicted rapist, he's willing to financially reimburse Evans' new employer, just because. Even if Evans was 'innocent' of rape, the facts of what he did do should surely be enough for any family member to try and do everything they can to keep him away from their daughter/sister/whatever?
What kind of man goes out of his way to protect rapists?
Just trying to imagine if my bf raped someone and my dad gave him loads of money for it (rather than spending the same money on sending a message to never come near me again).
he's only backing his daughter's own decisions - she decided to take Evans back into her life and forgive him (albeit we don't know whether under duress or anything, what I've seen implies that she's backed him all the way).
It doesn't make anyone involved any less stupid for their part in this..
Taking advantage of circumstances to secure himself some lucrative advertising contracts.
Stand sponsors first to go: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jan/07/ched-evans-signing-oldham-sponsor-cuts-ties-verlin-rainwater
as I have said along along, I agree with Jean Hatchet. Terrifyingly, he does not seem to accept what rape is. he is not really disputing the material facts of what went on. what he's refusing to do is accept that what happens amounts to rape. somebody needs to tell him (again) that he does not make the law. Ignorant cunt.
even if he apologises now and throws his hands up in horror at what he's done, it's too late for me. he's had ample opportunity and very expensive legal counsel (who have actually let him down IMO by not making him understand. Sometimes what's best for your client to hear is the opposite of what they want you to say.)
Yeah I think what's notable about this case is that its not the usual supposed 'two sides to every story' argument that people use when dismissing rape allegations. It's that on hearing the material facts of the case, a lot of people just don't think what happened ought to be classified as rape. People aren't coming out and saying as much but its pretty much the corollary of saying you don't think he's a rapist.
...is the amount of work that's been done to make Evans' appeal public and to publicly lambast and discredit the victim. On a well-publicised website, using CCTV evidence and using court testimony etc.
Don't think I've witnessed that before.
All boils down to a lack of understanding about what `consent` means.
Really hope he undergoes some kind of awakening and acts as a kind of example of someone who's seen the consequences (for himself and his victim) of a non-understanding of consent. I say this, because several of the folk I've debated this with don't seem to understand what consent is fully either. Which is terrifying, but somewhat inevitable given how we've all been largely brought up to view women/women's bodies.
Also there's a massive non-understanding of what it means to be a consistent and credible witness throughout the entirety of a rape case, too. All very depressing.
so much positive reinforcement from the people around you and "fans" saying that you are the victim in all this.
is the elasticity of the legal system and its evolutionary nature/ As I said I think upthread, within most of our lifetimes, at some point there was no such thing as spousal rape! Can you imagine!
And consent has been defined and redefined over time by many learned judges in the course of their deliberations and judgements handed down. Sometimes as what we call 'ratio decidendi' (which means that the case itself turns on this element of the ruling) and sometimes as 'obiter dicta' (which means that, although this particular case might not turn on it, it is of sufficient ancillary interest to the facts, and as such the judge takes the opportunity to say that had x applied, this is what she/she thought the law would need to be interpreted as saying. that is how judicial law is made- in interpreting statute and previous case law on a case by case basis to adopt basic principles of law.
if that makes sense?
So, what we have then. is a slow shaping of the concepts of consent over the years. a lot of people seem to be stuck in the dark ages (or rather, the 60s/70s), or have a father or uncle who remembers the days when you could fuck a drunk unconscious person and it wasn't automatically deemed rape.
I assume that everybody with half a brain/ internet access/ who reads the news ought to know that the court will deem that you cannot give consent in certain situations (unless you insist that you did in fact consent). But the sheer level of people who don't seem to know this worries me more and more. Or that rape is a continuing act and somebody could withdraw consent half way through and, from that moment on, the consensual act has become rape. And many other permutations which I assume everyone is au fait with, but maybe not? Do we need a mass re-education in respect of this? Maybe the AG needs to issue a circular.
Ultimately... I've never once been in a situation where I've felt an aggressive sense of entitlement to fuck someone else. Apparently a large number of people, it seems, don't feel the same. It's quite alienating to be honest.
Would go further wrt his counsel - I think they have been flat out appalling. Not only have they allowed him to perpetuate his own definition of rape, but they have actively participated in the creation of a totally misleading and almost certainly unlawful website protesting his innocence by essentially (almost) naming and (definitely) smearing his victim.
How they could have genuinely considered this would help his case with any appeal or review board is utterly beyond me (I'm guessing that they know it won't, but for whatever reason they have neglected to point this out to him).
Someone, for once, is actually found guilty...
"well there must be something wrong with the justice system".
Could the fact that the website is under investigation by the attorney general harm his current appeal, or is it separate?
I guess if some additional evidence was to come up as a result of his website and followers then that might?
(of fact or of law) in the original decision. Also if new evidence comes to light that was not available, for whatever reason, during the hearing of the matter under appeal, this may also be taken into account.
Theoretically, the appeal should concern itself only with the actual facts of the case, but like most things, it is unlikely that the appeal board will look at it in total isolation. It is also unlikely that the board will not be aware of the website and of Evans' subsequent behaviour, none of which will particularly endear him or his case to the appeal board, you would have thought
He should just give up at this point. Whoever advises him on how to not look like a dick is useless. He could have apologised and accepted everything or just shut up until whatever his issue is gets sorted. taken a year to pretend he's not a stupid dickhead by doing some image rehabilitation then come back to football?
I imagine he will give up eventually and just start a mens rights website
continue to prefix his name with "convicted rapist".
"And now over to Boundary Park where convicted rapist Ched Evans has equalised for Oldham."
Alan Pardew isn't in the studio ready to comment on it..
that the Pardew 'rapes him' comment was about an Essien tackle on...Ched Evans. Genuinely weird coincidence.
If so, I'm with you.
Be pretty bizarre if any more clubs put themselves through this.
'Finally, after years away I finally have a new club!
Oh wait, everyone hates me so much they've pulled the plug'
Hope it carries on indefinitely and completely ruins his life.
should just give him £2m to fuck off and live on some remote island. Then we can all forget about him ever existing.
and have him constantly train in the snow for a match that never comes.
yeah we're awful enough consider taking the lad on (served his time right?) ... but we're too cowardly to actually follow through... we're just very shit people basically.
but other peoples morals got in the way
"The sponsors have pulled out."
I don't believe for a second that a sponsor can just pull out of a an existing deal. I am sure their contract will say that they can have all their branding removed from the ground/website etc, but i bet they can't just stop paying because they have an issue with a player that the club has signed.
There is probably a clause about "disrepute" or something, that would need to be argued by very well paid solicitors, but that would take ages.
So my question is, what is the girlfriend's Dad actually paying for - he is proposing covering sponsorship money lost in the event that, say, Nandos manages to sue them on the grounds of disrepute, many months down the line?
Very different to just handing over the cash.
I have probably missed the point though and one of you clevers will know. I'm also aggressively tired so sorry for everything. Am off for a cry.
it isn't unheard of for footballers to have their contracts terminated immediately if they bring their club into sufficeint disrepute. So I'd imagine that some similar clause would exist in sponsor contracts as well.
I'm wracking my brains here, but I also seem to recall instances in the past where sponsors have cut ties immediately based on actions of indivdual sportsmen they have contracts with.
commercially negotiated sponsorship and promotional agreements contain a 'morals' clause or similar with a walk-away right.
as opposed to loss of sponsorship?
My question is more "what is the talked about £2m for, if the club keps the existing sponsorship money anyway?".
It's a boring question to be fair.
and Oldham probably haven't got the money to fight a sponsor pulling out. Goes something like:
- Sponsor just stops paying them
- Oldham say, "We'll sue you for breach of contract"
- Sponsor says, "Go on then"
- Oldham can't afford to sue for breach of contract
is that they're clearly irked that they've had to pull out of the deal, so rather than say it's about sponsors quite rightly pulling out on moral grounds, they're focusing on (what I would assume are) some Twitter 'threats' to make it look like the people who are anti-Evans are the 'bad guys'. Without even considering the weight of abuse that is coming from people who are supporting Evans (just look at the response to the BBC's reporting of this news on Twitter, for example).
It might be that extreme cynicism, but I’d be surprised if there’s been any direct threats to Oldham’s Directors and their families. Far more likely that they’ve bottled it due to all the sponsors dropping out, and have used the “threats” in an attempt to change the narrative away from “morally bankrupt club pulls out of signing convicted rapist” and towards “Online trolls force club to pull out of deal after threats made to family.”
"I do remain limited at present by what I can say due to the ongoing referral to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and whilst I continue to maintain my innocence, I wish to make it clear that I wholeheartedly apologise for the effects that night in Rhyl has had on many people, not least the woman concerned."
"not least the woman concerned"
He's wrong, obviously, but he's got a right to a misguided appeal and to maintain his innocence until he's been told in a court of law he's a fucking idiot and doesn't understand what rape is.
he's not really someone I want to give the benefit of the doubt to, but it's perfectly possible that he thinks his behaviour was appalling without it being illegal. That said, the fact this statement looks like a desperate attempt to get signed doesn't help much.
Shut up, Ched.
Also rings a bit hollow when a couple of weeks ago he put out a video in which he made a specific point of stating that his *only* regret was cheating on his girlfriend. Now it's clear that that no club will touch him and that he can't play abroad, he 'wholeheartedly apologises' for the events his actions have had (on a number of people, btw)
'I would like to apologise for the effects of the crime I definitely did not commit, despite my recent insistence that I had no regrets about the crime that I absolutely did not commit."
Seriously, shut the fuck up Ched.
I really should apologise for the website...'
Will he be available as a free agent in the next Football Manager?
As a general rule when players are incarcerated they're set as "unavailable" in our database and therefore don't appear in-game until they're out.
I'd hazard that once he does inevitably sign for someone (or even if he doesn't) he'll be back in-game when we do our data update after the transfer window shuts but I'm not sure.
...but is still touting his wares? Please send an all staff email and live blog the responses.
Mad that he was training with a club whilst still in prison (?!).
I'd imagine it's like when Swindon said they'd be giving Luke McCormick a trial whilst he was still doing time
had to report to the prison twice a week or something and would train the other days.
which was subsequently cancelled, largely because of Mboyo's success and the attention it brought to the scheme.
Interesting article on him (with a notable contrast to the Evans case in terms of Mboyo's attitude towards his victim)
if he'd signed for a club.
if you put him on your shortlist
however they are extremely unhappy with the signing of convicted rapist Ched Evans, who they believe to be an utter cunt and complete horrorshow of a man.'
We're not even allowed to hint that a player is a bad egg even when they've got the most unprofessional mental stats possible.
Not like giving Luis Suarez a hidden 'bitiness' rating of 20 or something.
he is the father of the fiancee (who has stood by Ched 'Convicted Rapist' Evans throughout his 'ordeal') and the man who seems to be pulling the strings behind scenes.
Was reading about him earlier - I'm interested to understand what makes a man want to put his considerable wealth and influence behind a scumbag like Evans. I noted this testimonial on the website of the PI firm who have been digging up the dirt on the victim;
and I'm now starting to wonder how long his support for Evans will last. I get the feeling that he will be the next target of the (social) media backlash
Why would someone who has 30 years experience in Sexual Crimes Prevention go on to help victims of abuse AND suspected offenders at the same time?
Signing to Oldham has fallen through, it appears someone has made rape threats to a named member of Oldham's staff. Disgusting stuff.
He appears to have chosen now however to finally issue some kind of apology for the night of the rape. More to follow according to BBC.
i mean if the whole 'signing a rapist' thing wasn't enough, it seems as if they lied about the rape threats to one of their daughters:
Found it extremely unlikely in the first place but didnt really want to say anything, this seems to confirm my suspicions. Just looks like an attempt to undermine anti-rape campaigners in a really disgusting way.
Evans' supporters have been hounding his victim since the attack basically, she has moved house 5 times and has a new identity. It wouldn't take much to undermine anti-rape activists by sending some rape threats to some Oldham staff via twitter. Easy get-out of the deal, undermines those against Ched Evans, then he comes straight out with a humble apology (which has been about 3 years too late, but there nonetheless). He now looks like a good guy. Maybe on the lookout for a bigger club?
isn't gonna send rape threats of any sort. It did basically stink from the start and the fact that they claimed these threats happened and went back on those claims when the police contacted them says a lot imo.
"Finally, it has been claimed that those using social media in an abusive and vindictive way towards this woman are supporters of mine. I wish to make it clear that these people are not my supporters and I condemn their actions entirely and will continue to do so,"
Wasn't that his sister?
Instead of releasing it about 30 seconds after finding out he wasn't being employed by Oldham. Maybe the last roll of the dice to get him in the good books before trying to find a desperate League two team who will have him.
he shouldn't make any comment on the case by his legal advisors. Obviously he confused that with not being able to say anything about anything.
The more it bounces around the internet echo chamber the deeper people have to dig to find fresh angles on it, leading to terrible opinion pieces like that Martin Samuel one yesterday and this disgrace from Rod Liddle:
(NB: avoid the comments)
The longer this nonsense goes on the further it strays from the actual debate, which in all honesty shouldn't even be a debate at all.
I am suffocating in bales of the stuff. Plus there is fluff like "froth of fashionable PC outrage". Ugh, fuck off.
*AVOID klaxon goes off*
only got myself to blame
in the very first sentence. It's all bound to be downhill from there really.
being an UBER-LIBERTARIAN but surprisingly selective about whose rights he wishes to promote. Other rights highlighted in the article:
- The right of people to peacefully raise objections to Oldham signing Evans
- The right of sponsors to consider withdrawal
- The right of Oldham to weigh up whether or not to sign Evans as a result of the above.
Somehow he adds all these up and gets `mob rule`. Which is intellectually inconsistent to say the least.
Might cancel my Spectator subscription, just to see how they might react...
The only threatening thing I can think of has been the (now disputed) threat sent to Oldham staff. Otherwise it is petitions and sponsors pulling out. Which they have a right to do. Oldham have a right to ignore it, as does he. The thing that pisses me off about this kind of article is the "where were the petitions when x,y,z was happening?" as if they would actually prefer more e-petitions.
To be honest, there probably is an article/debate to be had about why we view rape as more inexcusable than other crimes (Marlon King and Lee Hughes etc. etc.) in a footballing context but... there are about 5 billion more suitable candidates than Rod Liddle to have a crack at it.
Essentially he's just written an article about a cracking example of how individual and collective liberty work in a democracy and he's inadvertently backed himself into the wrong corner. LOL.
but as I understand it, as bad as what King and Hughes each did was, they didn't come out on licence still protesting their innocence and that they'd done nothing wrong, much less with friends and family trying to smeer the victims in their names.
But I don't think either have shown any contrition for what they did either. Could be wrong on that score.
But putting aside any probably pointless wider discourse about `rape vs. other crimes and returning to football`, in all of these `won't somebody PLEASE think of Ched` pieces there's one key piece missing... The single most contributory factor as to why Ched Evans hasn't resumed his career is Ched Evans himself. Not all of the various other agents that Liddle et. al. like to push blame onto.
What a mess.
Definitely a nasty piece of work.
"The PFA does not represent players when they have broken the law and been convicted on non-footballing matters.
"Nevertheless, should any member with anger management or other issues approach us for assistance we are always happy to provide that assistance through the Sporting Chance Clinic, as has been the case with other such high-profile cases."
For all of Taylor's hideous flaws at least I thought he was being belligerently consistent...
I'm not sure rape can be considered a non-football matter.
than people in other professions then?
Absolutely classic that that falsehood about rape threats has already been seized upon and is now being widely promulgated. The FA should throw the book at Oldham for that vile, cynical little maneuver but of course they won't. I hate... well, basically everything right now
So I scrolled down in hope of a few people calling Liddle a cunt, but once again the people who comment on online news articles don't fail to disappoint.
Those people supporting you sound exactly like supporters to me.
thought i'd avoided all that :(
has posted a rant on facebook about how Ched is innocent, and this is all a "media war on men". Really really really just want to let loose and scream at him in a comment, but that's what he wants, just have to take a deep breath, block the fucker, and stuff my face with so many noodles that they soak up all of my anger.
THAT WOMAN (on the right, can't remember her fucking name) and all the people in the audience and just oh my god are these the actual opinions of regular people in this country or did they just manage to find the most awful people ever for this particular show?
had it on in the background and was dumbfounded at some of the audience members opinions. That one guy that was basically equating a (albeit a horrif) car accident with the rape of young girl. Insane.
Julia Hartley-Brewer (YESSS SHE HAS A SILLY NAME) basically said "oh it was Jean's fault because she was drunk and when you are drunk you completely don't have a right to say no"
FUCKING HELL FUCK OFF. My blood has never boiled more, truly.
Also the way she kept saying "sorry, sisterhood".
Absolute abomination of a person.
sounds horrible :(
I'm convinced she's her stupid younger sister or something. How I wish I could somehow oust her from the group.
oh my fucking god Julia Hartley-Brewer is just the worst kind of person, she actually said that she thinks that if you are on in no fit state to consent to sex then that means if someone then has sex with you then that's fine, jesus christ, who is she? it's little wonder so few rapes actually get reported and so few men actually get convicted, the blasé attitude to rape in this country is frightening and not helped at all by women like her.
with Andrew Neil, Diane Abbott and Michael Portillo.
Do people still say boke? That.
but enough people did for me to despair at the state of humanity, most of the panel were right though the FA needs to bring in some rules where it's like you commit rape, murder or any sexual offence then you are never allowed to play professional football again then this kind of thing will never happen again.
Won't they be breaking some employment laws if they declare people who have served their sentence ineligible for work?
but it can be done as they have the rule in health care and other professions, to be honest in my world he'd be either executed or kept in prison for the rest of his life, it's an utter joke that 2.5 years of a 5 year sentence is deemed acceptable for a man who has never owned up to his hideous crime.
so Evans would be unable to run one as a convicted sex offender. He'd probably have problems getting a coaching position too if it included contact with young people?
which is a pretty big achievement - to my knowledge only two people have ever actually failed it.
they could probably make a decent case for not employing players on the Sex Offenders Register.
Being a convicted rapist isnt a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.
"Sadly the ‘mob rule’ tactics employed by the more radical elements of our society and the constant media reporting has had the desired influence on some sponsors and the club would face significant financial pressure if I joined them"
Can't find the full quote but it's pretty inflammatory.
Can't do much about that other than :D
(Genuinely don't know if there's anyone in football who knows what words mean. Any words.)
have combined to make me pretty sure there's no point in any of us carrying on living.
Alongside the responses of a lot of normally level headed people (men) on social media and in real life, voicing their concerns that men can't have drunk sex without being convicted, and the bizarre notion that rape laws are now skewed so far towards women that there's a witch hunt against men... Even some of the ones who outright condemn Evans are saying stuff like these.
Never realised how prevalent these views are, and they are clearly a paranoid reaction to a challenge to male privilege (of the worst, most despicable kind).
I assume there was a fair amount of islamophobia and rape apologists ranting on it?
Yeah, I did well to avoid it
"It has divided opinion of course and when you look at the case in detail and, I don't think most people have really, because they have just seen Ched Evans as a convicted rapist, when you do look at the case and look at the evidence then certainly Ched has got a case."
and coming up with that conclusion.
But then I imagine Steve Bruce regarding his toaster as one might the enigma machine and it sort of makes sense.
just realised I used to quite like Steve Bruce and I never even knew :(
Criminal law expert, Juror in the Ched Evans trial and manager of Hull City
How does he fit it all in?
Maybe a bit of a description might have been an idea.
but yeah remember to put up content warnings with this sort of thing (kinda should go without saying?)
Windup not intended
That has really surprised me.
but i think it cant be attributed to that really. rape myths, victim blaming, rape apology etc. exist because of unequal gender relations and exercises of power. don't think it's 'ignorance' as such when people are racist/sexist etc.
There's a lot to be said for unequal gender relations and exercises of power. If more women were in positions of power in football, then I doubt this situation would ever have been allowed to happen - it certainly wouldn't have continued anywhere near as long.
While rape culture is, admittedly, something I've never given a lot of thought, I do think there are a lot of people who are ignorant rather than... say, I don't know, willfully ignorant? There are obviously a lot of people who persist with the rape apology and victim blaming, who simply don't care enough to listen to opposing views. There are also people though with a genuine misunderstanding of what rape is - or who don't understand how one can be found innocent while the other guilty - but change their mind about it all after a bit of explanation. As for the people who accept that he's a rapist, but don't see an issue with him returning to football? I really don't know what I think about that - I've already had too many relationships, too many opinions, soured by attitudes and opinions of people I previously thought were alright.
so many people (men) are interested in protecting institutions and social arrangements which obviously disadvantage so many people (women). Its not just ignorance. Certain people have an interest in keeping things the way they are now. So it makes sense to have everyone socialised to make excuses for sexual violence and deny the extent of the problem. And to make sure people don't think women are worth listening to full stop. Its a lifelong process and inseparable from these other issues of how men/masculinity come to dominate or why women are oppressed. Ignorance doesn't really cover it.
what constitutes rape and why Ched Evans is so obviously guilty of it.
I'm not remotely surprised lots of men are trying to victim-blame. I am surprised they have gone down the 'what he did isn't rape' route rather than 'he didn't do anything'. Maybe there is more to that than ignorance, but I think a hell of a lot of people still have a really weird idea of what rape is and what doesn't constitute rape. That's what's shocked me. Especially how openly and bullishly people are happy to broadcast their ignorance on social media.
Can we just agree that the only reasonable answer is "no" and be done with it?
People were originally though
I'd still say yes.
Should any club actually employ him to do so? No.
can he go to the park and play football with his pals (if he even has any, hope he doesn't) then yeah that's fine.
he is allowed to resume his career as a professional footballer.
If I was a club chairman, I wouldn't look to sign him. But I appreciate that's every club's moral choice to make.
Thanks for coming in and sharing your perspective on it without reading it though. Always appreciated.
that rarely is it about whether convicted rapists should play football again. As I doubt many would say "yes" before this case. But as people have picked apart this specific case, they think he should have some special exemption because it isn't "*rape* rape" or something, or the victim tweeted something about buying a pink mini, or was pissed. If it was some bloke down the street who got released after a couple of years, people would be reaching for the pitchforks rather than the "everyone deserves a second chance" line.
Very good blog on the subject. Required reading.
As ched himself said as quoted from this, 'It is a rare and extraordinary privilege to be permitted to play professional football.' He is right. Being a professional footballer isnt just a job it is a representational role and a privilege afforded to the few rather than the many.'
I liked the quote: 'We don't know why the trial judge reached this decision, but he had in mind that Evans had no future as a footballer, telling him that he had 'thrown away the successful career in which you were involved'.
Also, it makes the point how he hasn't served his sentence, and being on the sexual offenders register indefinitely means that he is still serving a punishment.
Also, how his reward on the website for further information ( given the nature of the case) is designed to encourage extra-judicial digging into the victims life, designed to slander and harass the victim,
I'd suggest Harry Redknapp read this before commenting on the subject, but then i remembered how he can't read or write. Hopefully he can find someone to read it out to him.
didn't answer during cross examination? I appreciate that's normal if you're the defendant, but sounds more unusual if you're the plaintiff. Is that the case?
I can completely understand that if you've been raped then cross examination would be a completely horrendous experience.
that would strengthen their case.
so maybe little point. Or risk being utter bastards by accusing her of faking it.
My understanding is she has no memory of the event at all, so as far as she was concerned she woke up alone in a hotel room without her bag or phone. Which is obviously concerning. They tracked down the footballers through credit cards and CCTV and interviewed them which is where the whole case has emerged from. I am unsure if she has pressed the charges or if the state has done so.
Police only became involved after the victim reported her bag lost or stolen and they followed up re the circumstances. Obviously makes all of the 'gold digging whore' type assumptions from idiots in internet article comments sections even more ridiculous.
not that tweets from months later talking about buying pink minis means anything or would be admissable in court, but people read a lot into it. And is on Ched's website for people to peruse also.
Still a cunt tho
But he's being punished for rape and not for being a deeply misogynistic and despicable asshole.
There was nothing to stop him playing before apart from the damage to his reputation that his conviction, actions and lack of retribution inflicted. That probably won't be salvaged even by a not-guilty verdict in retrial.
FFS. All the PFM's are going to be happy
Old pros/'real men'
it is admissable, so it isn't what the girl tweeted or how well she could walk pissed in high heels at least.