|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Oct 13, 2014 19:57:53 GMT 1
Have a read of Chedevans.com .... Won't have a slant or bias
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2014 20:02:43 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by shawsie on Oct 13, 2014 20:16:01 GMT 1
Done the time and let him do what he does for a living...........am not trivialising the offence in any way, but what do folks want?! Let him live on benefits because he can't get a job....or put something back by playing football as best he can to re-earn fans respect.
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man on Oct 13, 2014 20:39:20 GMT 1
Have a read of Chedevans.com .... Won't have a slant or bias Well of course it fucking will. Did I say it wouldn't? It is the case for the defence, in the court of public opinion, so obviously it's biased. Does that mean that you can't read it objectively? It certainly poses some interesting questions and makes some robust challenges - it's pretty clear that those campaigning for him absolutely believe in his innocence. I certainly think that, if you're going to try and venture an opinion on him specifically, you should do the best you can to be in possession of all of the arguments. The argument against him is clear - he was convicted in a court of law. But we all know that convictions do get overturned. I don;t know if he did it or not, and the arguments posed on his website cause me to question it. Questioning things is good....try it.
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Oct 13, 2014 20:44:48 GMT 1
Do you always get so irate ?
Personally if I want to learn about Ched Evans the last place I would go is a website his missus' millionaire dad has funded ... But we are all different ....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2014 21:11:07 GMT 1
I can't get my head round why some people say he should be allowed to play football, but wouldn't be happy if it were here?
If his conviction is overturned, then its a different story, but as it stands he's a convicted rapist - I certainly don't want to be explaining to my 4 year old kid who the new player is and why he keeps getting booed by various sections of the crowd.
|
|
|
Post by Gag_N_Bone_Man on Oct 13, 2014 21:13:55 GMT 1
I'm hardly incandescent. Irritated, yes. Does the source of the questioning of the validity of the case against him make it any less valid or relevant.
Imagine, for a moment, you were falsely accused and convicted of a crime - would your family stick up for you? Do everything they could to clear your name? I certainly hope mine would. Do you think they don't believe he is innocent?
Do I think he's guilty or innocent? I don't know - having read extracts of court transcripts, followed the trial in the media (largely biased against him) and seen the family's position, I have reasonable doubt. In 1996 I sat on a jury in a date rape trial, and we convicted 11-1 - I abhor the crime he is convicted of. But I'm not sure I would vote to convict if the arguments put forward by his supporters were cogently put forward byu his defence counsel.
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Oct 13, 2014 21:25:33 GMT 1
I'm hardly incandescent. Irritated, yes. Does the source of the questioning of the validity of the case against him make it any less valid or relevant.
Imagine, for a moment, you were falsely accused and convicted of a crime - would your family stick up for you? Do everything they could to clear your name? I certainly hope mine would. Do you think they don't believe he is innocent? Do I think he's guilty or innocent? I don't know - having read extracts of court transcripts, followed the trial in the media (largely biased against him) and seen the family's position, I have reasonable doubt. In 1996 I sat on a jury in a date rape trial, and we convicted 11-1 - I abhor the crime he is convicted of. But I'm not sure I would vote to convict if the arguments put forward by his supporters were cogently put forward byu his defence counsel. Yes ...in my opinion
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2014 21:59:05 GMT 1
The real crime here is that the sentence was so lenient. A footballers career is maybe 15 years at best. Rape should be more than that anyway and so not an issue. The getting out on good behaviour is ridiculous as its the persons behaviour in the first place that resulted in going to prison. They all have, at the very least, previous questionable character issues.
For me, once you have served your time, you should be able to then continue your life (apart from working with children/vulnerable) .
Sentences should represent the seriousness of the crime, but it never really seems to be like that.
|
|
|
Post by lankystreak on Oct 13, 2014 22:30:11 GMT 1
I'm hardly incandescent. Irritated, yes. Does the source of the questioning of the validity of the case against him make it any less valid or relevant.
Imagine, for a moment, you were falsely accused and convicted of a crime - would your family stick up for you? Do everything they could to clear your name? I certainly hope mine would. Do you think they don't believe he is innocent? Do I think he's guilty or innocent? I don't know - having read extracts of court transcripts, followed the trial in the media (largely biased against him) and seen the family's position, I have reasonable doubt. In 1996 I sat on a jury in a date rape trial, and we convicted 11-1 - I abhor the crime he is convicted of. But I'm not sure I would vote to convict if the arguments put forward by his supporters were cogently put forward byu his defence counsel. Yes ...in my opinion So, you've not bothered to take the time to look at it and form an opinion I guess? ? Could you please point us all in the direction of a better website available that posts up relevant video footage, statements, and undisputed facts of the case..............
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2014 22:43:40 GMT 1
The offence is completely unrelated to the job, so legally I can't see how he could be banned from football.
He should never play again because clubs should take it upon themselves to avoid employing him. Unfortunately football has plenty of morally defunct characters who will employ him, play him and rally around him in a siege mentality. Even if by some miracle, someone doesn't employ him as a footballer he'll end up making a wedge by going on Big Brother or similar... Just got to suck it up and accept the world's not fair sometimes.
|
|
cj01
Jimmy Nicholson Terrier
High above Huddersfield.
Posts: 1,595
|
Post by cj01 on Oct 13, 2014 22:54:27 GMT 1
Perhaps it would help to view this question the way the law makers have to view it - as a matter of principle.
Forget the actual offence, the principle in question is should a convicted criminal, having served his/her sentence, be stopped from returning to his previous employment. An obvious no applies where that job would provide further opportunity and temptation to the criminal and/or risk to the public. So embezzler shouldn't return to be a cashier; rapist return to work with similar people to his victims (taken care of by the legislation at present; - and so on.
That apart, the logical answer is the criminal has served his sentence and should not be sentenced for it over and over again by refusing to allow him to work in any area where he is qualified to work. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act even allows that after the passage of a certain period of time, previous convictions, even those attracting custody, are to be regarded as spent and so the criminal can claim to be of previous good character. (Or, has taken the opportunity to rebuild his good character.)
It's a sort of legal version of the repentant sinner, must be allowed to atone for his sins and be forgiven.
Further, if the decision is to allow other jobs, not his "trade or profession" - where is the logic in that? What logic is available to support the argument that it's alright to work as a street sweeper, shop assistant, insurance agent, nurse, when trained or experienced as a bus driver.
Working on that principle the obvious answer must be, the criminal should not be sentenced to some form of deprivation of liberty (to choose to work in his chosen profession etc) over and over again, for what could be a further 30 years for a 30 year old criminal.
Forget the offence, forget the career of the person concerned, the principle must surely be he can pursue any line of employment, including his chosen one.
As for how long his sentence was; how much of it should he have served - those are different issues entirely and have no place in this particular discussion.
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Oct 13, 2014 23:07:52 GMT 1
agreed, as per my first 2/3 posts on this subject.. I just cant see how footballers get placed on this pedestal that makes them so much better than ordinary people or so much worse when they make an arse of their life? fairly simple lads(most of them) playing a simple game that does not take up too much of your time with far too much money to spend with arseholes who will let them spend it, mostly unwisely.. nothing more, nothing less..
|
|
|
Post by 5kippy on Oct 13, 2014 23:38:18 GMT 1
Haven't we all done something (illegal or not), that we wished we hadn't done and told ourselves that we would never make the same mistake again?
Does that make us a bad person, for whom nobody should ever employ again or justify being vilified for the rest of our lives by the "moral" majority.
Or does it make us a better person, through learning from our mistakes? Which, after all, is part of the normal process for learning.
Let he who is without sin.....
|
|
|
Post by WaterlooTerrier on Oct 14, 2014 1:36:10 GMT 1
What he did is heinous, there's no doubt about that and I'm not condoning his actions, but is it any worse than what other footballers have done before they resumed their careers?
I mean look at Luke McCormick, he killed two brothers (aged 8 and 10) aswell as putting their father in hopsital with a fractured neck, whilst he was twice the legal drink drive limit. He is now back at Plymouth and made club captain during the summer.
He killed two kids. A mother had to bury her two sons. If he can resume his career, anyone can.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 2:18:23 GMT 1
As a female supporter it would disgust me greatly to hear any fan singing 'super Ched Evans' from the stands. Rape is a violent crime against women. Nothing super about that. For him a convicted rapist to be on a field entertaining Men, Women and Children I just find the whole idea incomprehensible and if he played for htafc and came back I wouldn't be able to be at a game whilst he was on the field. I don't begrudge him the chance to earn a wage but not in family based entertainment. IMO. Well said. You have got right the heart of the matter superbly well, whilst the OP has missed the point entirely. This case is far more complex than antiquated 'it's the law, he's served his time, he has a right to return to his job' platitudes that are routinely trotted out when these situations arise. His return gives out the message to all the young women and men that rape is not that serious. Do a bit of time (half his sentence in this case) then crack on & pick up where you left off, whilst the victim lives with the trauma and stigma of their ordeal forever. He should be allowed to work but not with vulnerable adults or children and not in the public eye. A politician or tv presenter would not return to their career after a rape conviction why should a footballer? So a club can make money from his services? To hell with the impact on fans? No way Hoyle and Powell would ever have him at town, but some one sadly will.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 2:36:27 GMT 1
I knew this thread would see a myriad of mindless, ignorant, patriarchal, antiquated old, misogynistic views brought forth and I haven't been disappointed. Well I have, but not in any way surprised. Is it 1964 or 2014?
I wonder how the majority of blokes on this thread would feel if they to see ched lining up against town when it was their daughter he had raped with his pals. With fans on the terraces saying 'ah well, she wa' drunk an' probably askin' forit anyhow.'
Oh I forget yeah I'm liberal lefty, happy clapper, PC brigade etc etc.
|
|
Spunker
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Spunker Terrier
Posts: 4,131
|
Post by Spunker on Oct 14, 2014 3:58:32 GMT 1
Having read the case for the defence I would have to say that they put together a compelling argument which suggests this may be an opportunistic false allegation of rape. To be clear, I hate rape and condemn anyone guilty of it. However, I similarly despise those who may make false allegations and ruin the life of a man who, potentially, has broken no law. If this is true it also makes it harder for genuine victims to get justice. Something just doesn't ring true about it all. Have a read: www.chedevans.com/Although cautious of not upsetting anyone because this is an incredibly sensitive subject, and rightly so; I was about to say the same thing. For me, he was hard done by. This girl must have known what she was getting herself into and surely not that naive. Why did she let someone buy her drinks AND go to a hotel with him? No rape drugs were involved as far as it is known and she just got herself steaming. Obviously not a very sensible or responsible human being. The strangest things in this is why he wanted to go to Rhyl on a Bank Holiday and why his Missus defended him; okay question his conviction but he still slept with another girl. Odd. Still, Town got promoted because of this.
|
|
|
Post by mightyterrier on Oct 14, 2014 8:19:15 GMT 1
I knew this thread would see a myriad of mindless, ignorant, patriarchal, antiquated old, misogynistic views brought forth and I haven't been disappointed. Well I have, but not in any way surprised. Is it 1964 or 2014? I wonder how the majority of blokes on this thread would feel if they to see ched lining up against town when it was their daughter he had raped with his pals. With fans on the terraces saying 'ah well, she wa' drunk an' probably askin' forit anyhow.' Oh I forget yeah I'm liberal lefty, happy clapper, PC brigade etc etc. Great response, captured my thoughts exactly
|
|
|
Post by upthetown on Oct 14, 2014 8:23:20 GMT 1
Haven't we all done something (illegal or not), that we wished we hadn't done and told ourselves that we would never make the same mistake again? Does that make us a bad person, for whom nobody should ever employ again or justify being vilified for the rest of our lives by the "moral" majority. Or does it make us a better person, through learning from our mistakes? Which, after all, is part of the normal process for learning. Let he who is without sin..... Yes, but that should never be extended to rape! It's hardly taking the moral high ground to dislike Ched, the rapist. Learn from his mistakes? Not sure you really need to rape someone to learn that its actually not on.
|
|
|
Post by upthetown on Oct 14, 2014 8:29:04 GMT 1
Having read the case for the defence I would have to say that they put together a compelling argument which suggests this may be an opportunistic false allegation of rape. To be clear, I hate rape and condemn anyone guilty of it. However, I similarly despise those who may make false allegations and ruin the life of a man who, potentially, has broken no law. If this is true it also makes it harder for genuine victims to get justice. Something just doesn't ring true about it all. Have a read: www.chedevans.com/Although cautious of not upsetting anyone because this is an incredibly sensitive subject, and rightly so; I was about to say the same thing. For me, he was hard done by. This girl must have known what she was getting herself into and surely not that naive. Why did she let someone buy her drinks AND go to a hotel with him? No rape drugs were involved as far as it is known and she just got herself steaming. Obviously not a very sensible or responsible human being. The strangest things in this is why he wanted to go to Rhyl on a Bank Holiday and why his Missus defended him; okay question his conviction but he still slept with another girl. Odd. Still, Town got promoted because of this. She let the other guy buy her drinks and went back with him, hence him being found not guilty. (His name escapes me). Ched was summoned by the friend, and brought his brother to film it. Very creepy. He looks a bit rapey too, although I'm not convinced that, in itself, is a solid legal argument. Always find it odd that his Mrs stood by him too. At best he goes out sleeping with other women, at worst he's a convicted rapist.
|
|
|
Post by Giggity on Oct 14, 2014 8:34:49 GMT 1
The irony is that he would be a very good addition to our team given our formation however there's no chance I would accept him here.
Guilty or not, you've got to question the morals of a married man who would want to double team a paralytic girl in a grotty hotel whilst his brother films.
Fwiw, I think he is guilty. His wife should be ashamed of herself standing by a man that has abused another and embarrassed her for the sake of a few expensive pairs of heels and handbags.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 8:35:00 GMT 1
Since when did a girl getting drunk and coming back to your room / flat / house, equate to consenting to sex in a room full of folk while it is being filmed?
I'm sure lots of us have taken somebody home after a night out but in no way is it acceptable to assume that means you can have sex with them, even if they are so drunk they aren't really aware of what is happening. It's rape, end of. Unless Evans can come up with some evidence that the girl agreed to have sex with HIM, then its rape.
|
|
|
Post by lankystreak on Oct 14, 2014 8:50:54 GMT 1
Since when did a girl getting drunk and coming back to your room / flat / house, equate to consenting to sex in a room full of folk while it is being filmed? I'm sure lots of us have taken somebody home after a night out but in no way is it acceptable to assume that means you can have sex with them, even if they are so drunk they aren't really aware of what is happening. It's rape, end of. Unless Evans can come up with some evidence that the girl agreed to have sex with HIM, then its rape. Firstly (not aimed at the above quote) I think a lot of people who have commented on this thread should actually read up on the case as a lot of what people are quoting as "facts" are utter rubbish. The highlighted bit above has annoyed me, why is it put upon him to prove she gave consent? ? She can't remember a thing (supposedly, even though experts in the case said this was highly unlikely) and given that there were only 3 people in the room and 2 of them who can remember say it wasn't rape, how are they ever going to be able to prove this? ? What you are saying there is that any woman who claims rape when waking up the morning after and regretting it has to be believed if there were only those 2 people in the room, why even bother having trials if this is the case??? As stated before, "justice" is just the opinion of 12 individuals on a given set of days in a court room, a different set of individuals could give a very different verdict. Personally I would rather read up on the case myself and form my own opinion rather than be guided by 12 random people. For example, OJ Simpson was as guilty as sin, yet he was found not guilty in one of the most ridiculous court decisions ever.
|
|
|
Post by Barbieterrier on Oct 14, 2014 8:52:28 GMT 1
I knew this thread would see a myriad of mindless, ignorant, patriarchal, antiquated old, misogynistic views brought forth and I haven't been disappointed. Well I have, but not in any way surprised. Is it 1964 or 2014? I wonder how the majority of blokes on this thread would feel if they to see ched lining up against town when it was their daughter he had raped with his pals. With fans on the terraces saying 'ah well, she wa' drunk an' probably askin' forit anyhow.' Oh I forget yeah I'm liberal lefty, happy clapper, PC brigade etc etc. Think I must be part of that brigade too. But you understand the point I was making. I wonder at what point it's a crime for a girl to get drunk, trust a guy, go back to a hotel with him only to find herself being raped? She was too drunk to give consent. Why couldn't he wait until she sobered up in the morning? I've no intention on reading his website on his defence because to me if anyone is too drunk to give consent or says no that should be enough. Shifting the blame doesn't put that into question. Judy Finnigans comments mentioned in this thread are pathetic. I wonder what she thinks happens? Right or wrong of the situation since I'm a minority in being female I am wondering how many of you chaps would be happy to spend money on a convicted rapist playing for htafc?
|
|
|
Post by lankystreak on Oct 14, 2014 8:56:12 GMT 1
Just to clarify, the only other person who was in the room at the time who can remember it fully says this: “The woman agreed to sex with both of us. I know he is an innocent man and will do anything to help him.” “She agreed to have consensual sex. I texted Ched and told him where I was. “He came down and asked if he could join in. The woman agreed and I left.” For full interview: www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/clayton-mcdonald-midland-footballer-speaks-6788373
|
|
|
Post by bro600 on Oct 14, 2014 9:03:50 GMT 1
Some posters on this thread must live in some kind of bubble or sterilized environment and must never have heard of the term vulnerable adults or children. The bare roots of decency are being eroded by the thought that Rio missing a drugs test , Lee Hughes and Clayton McDonald being given the right to play again that somehow vindicates Evans playing again? People pointing towards the law and terms of agreement of his release when the majority of people know the law is an Ass bound by it's own rules and unable to use common sense because of it. The criminal records Bureau checks in football should be changed to include footballers. Their occupation does make their access to Vulnerable adults and children easier and they are in contact with the same..Referees have to have a CRB check, as do coaches and you regularly see first team footballers in and around hospitals visiting children at Xmas. I don't understand anyone who would put their or any weight behind a rapist and even if i thought he'd the right to play again i'd rather have my eyes poked out with a stick than fight his corner.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 9:10:04 GMT 1
I knew this thread would see a myriad of mindless, ignorant, patriarchal, antiquated old, misogynistic views brought forth and I haven't been disappointed. Well I have, but not in any way surprised. Is it 1964 or 2014? I wonder how the majority of blokes on this thread would feel if they to see ched lining up against town when it was their daughter he had raped with his pals. With fans on the terraces saying 'ah well, she wa' drunk an' probably askin' forit anyhow.' Oh I forget yeah I'm liberal lefty, happy clapper, PC brigade etc etc. Think I must be part of that brigade too. But you understand the point I was making. I wonder at what point it's a crime for a girl to get drunk, trust a guy, go back to a hotel with him only to find herself being raped? She was too drunk to give consent. Why couldn't he wait until she sobered up in the morning? I've no intention on reading his website on his defence because to me if anyone is too drunk to give consent or says no that should be enough. Shifting the blame doesn't put that into question. Judy Finnigans comments mentioned in this thread are pathetic. I wonder what she thinks happens? Right or wrong of the situation since I'm a minority in being female I am wondering how many of you chaps would be happy to spend money on a convicted rapist playing for htafc? Hopefully none of us. I would be appalled if our club even conteplated it. IMO the sentence didn't fit the crime anyway and he has only served half of that which makes it worse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 9:18:01 GMT 1
Since when did a girl getting drunk and coming back to your room / flat / house, equate to consenting to sex in a room full of folk while it is being filmed? I'm sure lots of us have taken somebody home after a night out but in no way is it acceptable to assume that means you can have sex with them, even if they are so drunk they aren't really aware of what is happening. It's rape, end of. Unless Evans can come up with some evidence that the girl agreed to have sex with HIM, then its rape.That seems to stand in stark contrast to the general principle of being innocent until proven guilty. The difficulty in prosecuting people for rape is that it's difficult to prove guilt, given that generally there are only two people there and it's one word against another. However, countering that by making the accused have to prove innocence only shifts it completely in the other direction. How would you ever prove that sex was consensual? Even a non-abusive husband of 20 years would struggle to prove that his wife consented to having sex with him in a court of law, unless he made her sign a contract in front of witnesses every time...
|
|
|
Post by townatheart on Oct 14, 2014 9:20:10 GMT 1
Having read the case for the defence I would have to say that they put together a compelling argument which suggests this may be an opportunistic false allegation of rape. To be clear, I hate rape and condemn anyone guilty of it. However, I similarly despise those who may make false allegations and ruin the life of a man who, potentially, has broken no law. If this is true it also makes it harder for genuine victims to get justice. Something just doesn't ring true about it all. Have a read: www.chedevans.com/Although cautious of not upsetting anyone because this is an incredibly sensitive subject, and rightly so; I was about to say the same thing. For me, he was hard done by. This girl must have known what she was getting herself into and surely not that naive. Why did she let someone buy her drinks AND go to a hotel with him? No rape drugs were involved as far as it is known and she just got herself steaming. Obviously not a very sensible or responsible human being. The strangest things in this is why he wanted to go to Rhyl on a Bank Holiday and why his Missus defended him; okay question his conviction but he still slept with another girl. Odd. Still, Town got promoted because of this. Just to clarify your thoughts, if you went for a night out with some lads, and accepted their generousity in buying you drinks, and then later you crashed out drunk, would it be okay for them to sodomise you and film the act? And that if any offence had taken place, it was your responsibility, and not the responsibility of the individuals who assualted you?
|
|