|
Post by nickmaca10 on Oct 14, 2014 9:31:08 GMT 1
On a selfish note, I don't like seeing a convicted criminal earning more than I ever will, but no doubt that happens all the time (I mean for legit jobs) - just not in the public domain.
What I would like to see is a tax, similar to how student loans are calculated, whereby if you earn over certain thresholds after serving a prison term, you pay back some of the cost for your prison term. Their contributions to society should be higher due to their higher cost to society.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 9:31:11 GMT 1
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? If that had indeed been the scenario then there would have been totally different opinons about him on here and IMO no way would he have played football again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 9:37:13 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... But he has been proven guilty, despite a statement from his mate stating that the girl consented. Presumably this evidence was unreliable? He was innocent right up until the point the lead juror announced the verdict, if he appeals and the conviction is overturned then he's innocent again, but as it stands, he's guilty of rape - hence, it's down to him to prove she consented.
|
|
|
Post by 3Pipe on Oct 14, 2014 9:39:46 GMT 1
On a selfish note, I don't like seeing a convicted criminal earning more than I ever will, but no doubt that happens all the time (I mean for legit jobs) - just not in the public domain. What I would like to see is a tax, similar to how student loans are calculated, whereby if you earn over certain thresholds after serving a prison term, you pay back some of the cost for your prison term. Their contributions to society should be higher due to their higher cost to society. I like the cut of your jib sir. I'd vote for you.
|
|
|
Post by swollentoe on Oct 14, 2014 9:41:19 GMT 1
The people outside filming the act should have been prosecuted as well as I can't imagine she said they could film her
Who gets a key from reception knowing his mate (who he got the room for) was in there with a lass, that is asking for trouble
The offence of rape is set out in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Section 74 of the Act says a person consents if
‘he aggress by choice and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice.’
Quite a wide definition you might think?
It adds more confusion than clarity is a frequent criticism and section 74 has proved critical in broadening the scope of the offence.
If you are drunk do you have the capacity to make that choice ?
|
|
|
Post by lankystreak on Oct 14, 2014 9:41:46 GMT 1
Serious question:
If Ched Evans and Clayton McDonald had have both woken up the next day and not remembered a thing (in theory they would have been too drunk to have consented), who would have been guilty of raping who? If anyone??
Personally I think this case shows up just how dangerous one night stands can be
|
|
|
Post by upthetown on Oct 14, 2014 9:42:59 GMT 1
On a selfish note, I don't like seeing a convicted criminal earning more than I ever will, but no doubt that happens all the time (I mean for legit jobs) - just not in the public domain. What I would like to see is a tax, similar to how student loans are calculated, whereby if you earn over certain thresholds after serving a prison term, you pay back some of the cost for your prison term. Their contributions to society should be higher due to their higher cost to society. Good concept, and a sensible Nick! Win-win.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 10:12:30 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. Well said Bro. Absolutely the crb(now called DBS) checks system should include footballers. I was going to make this point last night. If we want to progress as a a society and teach our young boys and men then we need a far tougher line on crime. Footballers have gotten away with far too much for far too long. Some of the posts on this thread are so ignorant. We have the red top paper brigade out in force. Just shows as a society how far we still have to go & why generally speaking rape reporting (let alone) conviction is so low.
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Oct 14, 2014 10:37:07 GMT 1
start poking your eyes out Joe..
Evans hasn't got away with anything. To call people who have the actual LAW OF THE LAND on their side 'ignorant' is somewhat crass.
CRB checks don't include footballers because the rules governing the checks don't see them as having enough contact with kids or vulnerable people to make the checks valid. Lots and lots of jobs don't need the checks for the same reason. If you want everyone in every occupation checking(dustbinmen will meet kids/vulnerable adults in their job occasionally) then say so.
The offensive and shameful twaddle I wont even bother with. You want everyone who has committed an offence to pay for ever for it, you are the red top paper brigade, 'hang em all'...
Pro rata we have more MPs in prison than police officers, maybe starting there might be a better option than picking on a bloke who stupidly got involved when very drunk, with a very, very drunk female and some mates who turned into arseholes.
Court said he was guilty, he does the time and he can play football again for me, he isn't an upstanding member of the public, he isn't a moral role model, he is a bloody footballer and very ordinarily stupid with it..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 11:03:56 GMT 1
start poking your eyes out Joe.. Evans hasn't got away with anything. To call people who have the actual LAW OF THE LAND on their side 'ignorant' is somewhat crass. CRB checks don't include footballers because the rules governing the checks don't see them as having enough contact with kids or vulnerable people to make the checks valid. Lots and lots of jobs don't need the checks for the same reason. If you want everyone in every occupation checking(dustbinmen will meet kids/vulnerable adults in their job occasionally) then say so. The offensive and shameful twaddle I wont even bother with. You want everyone who has committed an offence to pay for ever for it, you are the red top paper brigade, 'hang em all'... Pro rata we have more MPs in prison than police officers, maybe starting there might be a better option than picking on a bloke who stupidly got involved when very drunk, with a very, very drunk female and some mates who turned into arseholes. Court said he was guilty, he does the time and he can play football again for me, he isn't an upstanding member of the public, he isn't a moral role model, he is a bloody footballer and very ordinarily stupid with it.. He can play football as long as it's not for Huddersfield Town?
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Oct 14, 2014 11:32:55 GMT 1
Wouldn't that be the most ideal of scenarios (For those that feel a crime has been committed rather than rely on a drunk girl being of sound enough mind to consent to a filmed threesome anyway)
Allow him to play football again but every club CHOOSE not to employ him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 11:39:15 GMT 1
Wouldn't that be the most ideal of scenarios (For those that feel a crime has been committed rather than rely on a drunk girl being of sound enough mind to consent to a filmed threesome anyway) Allow him to play football again but every club CHOOSE not to employ him. Isn't that the point if he thread. We all know what' thelaw states, he's a convicted rapist who is legally entitled to return to his profession. The discussion is whether it is morally acceptable. For me it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Oct 14, 2014 11:56:27 GMT 1
mel..
if town signed him next Monday, I would still go and support the team. Dean wont but it does not stop the witchhunt of someone merely because they are well known and earn good money, being wrong.
As I have stated before, they are just employees and they are paid to play football, Evans cannot do the community side and his contract would reflect this. Football clubs cannot be arbitors of public opinion or outrage whilst the actual law allows offenders to return to work after serving their sentence.
Football teams have numerous offenders in their squads, numerous players with bad 'habits' and numerous players who will fall foul of the lifestyle and the money and they should all be dealt with by way of the clubs discipline or the countries laws, whichever applies. They then play again for that club or for any other club if sacked/released by the first, same as anyone else.
I expect a great deal from police officers, members of the clergy etc etc and believe they have the moral 'duty' to be better than the average citizen(they chose the job and know the high moral code that comes with it), but not footballers, its not a job that comes with any moral duty, just the ordinary 'rules' to turn up on time and do the best you can.
They will be asking for extra payments if they go a year without getting locked up, if we are not careful or bonus payments for not getting points on their licence..
kids kicking a bit of plastic about do not render themselves well to being role models.
|
|
jasonhand
Frank Worthington Terrier
Posts: 1,971
|
Post by jasonhand on Oct 14, 2014 11:56:56 GMT 1
I've read through this post and wasn't going to get involved.
Clearly rape is morally wrong and in my mind Evans was guilty of rape. What he did that night was totally unacceptable, he would have know the lady in question was clearly not in a position to do what she would normally do. The fact that she didn't say "No" and the fact that it wasn't "Violent" are irrelevant in my opinion. He saw an opportunity to have sex with a young lady, to get some gratification off somebody who was sadly too drunk to say that she didn't want this to happen. I'm certain everyone on here who has posted knows that.
I truly hope he never plays football again. He has ruined somebodies life and doesn't deserve the opportunity to restart his career like nothing had happened. I appreciate there is nothing in law to stop him but that doesn't make it right.
I admit to not having read the website which has been put together by his Father-in-law. I was his father-in-law the last thing I'd be doing his trying to defend somebody at the very least had been unfaithful to my daughter.
|
|
|
Post by 3Pipe on Oct 14, 2014 11:57:08 GMT 1
Did you feel the same way about Hammill playing after committing his offence? @billynomates bro600 Barbieterrier @joseppi1
|
|
|
Post by lankystreak on Oct 14, 2014 11:57:33 GMT 1
Wouldn't that be the most ideal of scenarios (For those that feel a crime has been committed rather than rely on a drunk girl being of sound enough mind to consent to a filmed threesome anyway) Allow him to play football again but every club CHOOSE not to employ him. Isn't that the point if he thread. We all know what' thelaw states, he's a convicted rapist who is legally entitled to return to his profession. The discussion is whether it is morally acceptable. For me it isn't. But isn't it the law that is giving you these morals, not you looking at the case and making your own judgement. If it was all based on your morals you would look at the case for yourself and decide if his actions were morally acceptable, If we're talking morals then whether he is guilty or not he has acted in a way unbecoming of someone who I would want representing my club. Your reasoning seems to be that if he appeals and is found not guilty he should be ok to find a new club and I'm guessing ok to represent Town? To clarify my position, morally I wouldn't want him anywhere near our club as I think guilty or not he has behaved in a shocking manner, this would not change if he appealed and got found not guilty.
|
|
|
Post by lankystreak on Oct 14, 2014 12:00:07 GMT 1
I've read through this post and wasn't going to get involved. Clearly rape is morally wrong and in my mind Evans was guilty of rape. What he did that night was totally unacceptable, he would have know the lady in question was clearly not in a position to do what she would normally do. The fact that she didn't say "No" and the fact that it wasn't "Violent" are irrelevant in my opinion. He saw an opportunity to have sex with a young lady, to get some gratification off somebody who was sadly too drunk to say that she didn't want this to happen. I'm certain everyone on here who has posted knows that.I truly hope he never plays football again. He has ruined somebodies life and doesn't deserve the opportunity to restart his career like nothing had happened. I appreciate there is nothing in law to stop him but that doesn't make it right. I admit to not having read the website which has been put together by his Father-in-law. I was his father-in-law the last thing I'd be doing his trying to defend somebody at the very least had been unfaithful to my daughter. How would you or anyone else on this forum know that if they weren't there at the time? ? It is comments such as this that are annoying me on this thread
|
|
|
Post by Essex Terrier on Oct 14, 2014 12:04:27 GMT 1
Mike Tyson.
Rightly or wrongly no-one stopped him from continuing his career.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 12:08:33 GMT 1
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... But he has been proven guilty, despite a statement from his mate stating that the girl consented. Presumably this evidence was unreliable? He was innocent right up until the point the lead juror announced the verdict, if he appeals and the conviction is overturned then he's innocent again, but as it stands, he's guilty of rape - hence, it's down to him to prove she consented. Fair play. Apologies I thought you meant before the verdict.
|
|
jasonhand
Frank Worthington Terrier
Posts: 1,971
|
Post by jasonhand on Oct 14, 2014 12:08:53 GMT 1
Fair enough lankystreak nobody will ever really know.
But put yourself in the position where you've been out with a mate and he hooks up with someone who is clearly drunk. OK, she constents to sex with him. Would you put yourself in the position to then go and visit the hotel room to also join in on the act when you could she was clearly incapable of making that decision to have sex with the pair of you? And then have a friend film it?
Everything in your morale fibre should be saying at that point this is not right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 12:09:31 GMT 1
Did you feel the same way about Hammill playing after committing his offence? @billynomates bro600 Barbieterrier @joseppi1 Do you really want to compare rape with punching somebody?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 12:13:46 GMT 1
Did you feel the same way about Hammill playing after committing his offence? @billynomates bro600 Barbieterrier @joseppi1 I think there should be tougher career sanctions against footballers who commit crimes e.g. 1-2 year bans but common law assault is a long way from rape. Level one crimes such as rape, murder, paedophilia, should be lifetime bans. Football (whether people like it or not) is the national game and receives huge media attention. It has a huge audience of under 18's and therefore has a huge social responsibility to take a leading and progressive stance in such matters. What it actually does is demonstrate the grubby, morally vacuous base aspects of society- greed, financial gain, injustice and base morality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 12:14:48 GMT 1
I've read through this post and wasn't going to get involved. Clearly rape is morally wrong and in my mind Evans was guilty of rape. What he did that night was totally unacceptable, he would have know the lady in question was clearly not in a position to do what she would normally do. The fact that she didn't say "No" and the fact that it wasn't "Violent" are irrelevant in my opinion. He saw an opportunity to have sex with a young lady, to get some gratification off somebody who was sadly too drunk to say that she didn't want this to happen. I'm certain everyone on here who has posted knows that.I truly hope he never plays football again. He has ruined somebodies life and doesn't deserve the opportunity to restart his career like nothing had happened. I appreciate there is nothing in law to stop him but that doesn't make it right. I admit to not having read the website which has been put together by his Father-in-law. I was his father-in-law the last thing I'd be doing his trying to defend somebody at the very least had been unfaithful to my daughter. How would you or anyone else on this forum know that if they weren't there at the time? ? It is comments such as this that are annoying me on this thread All of your comments are annoying me on this thread Ian. How can you be so naive?
|
|
|
Post by 3Pipe on Oct 14, 2014 12:23:12 GMT 1
Did you feel the same way about Hammill playing after committing his offence? @billynomates bro600 Barbieterrier @joseppi1 Do you really want to compare rape with punching somebody? Not at all but punching a woman is a disgusting act also. It seems you are cutting your moral cloth to suit here. Assault is assault at the end of the day, a crime is a crime. Evans has done his time, served his sentence and should be given the same rights to rehabilitation as any other criminal. I like the idea of increased income tax to repay the state for the resources he has used.
|
|
|
Post by 3Pipe on Oct 14, 2014 12:25:00 GMT 1
I think there should be tougher career sanctions against footballers who commit crimes e.g. 1-2 year bans but common law assault is a long way from rape. Level one crimes such as rape, murder, paedophilia, should be lifetime bans. Football (whether people like it or not) is the national game and receives huge media attention. It has a huge audience of under 18's and therefore has a huge social responsibility to take a leading and progressive stance in such matters. What it actually does is demonstrate the grubby, morally vacuous base aspects of society- greed, financial gain, injustice and base morality. Again, level one crimes, level two crimes... it's dodgy ground.
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Oct 14, 2014 12:33:52 GMT 1
there are incredibly drunk/drugged men and women(also kids) having ill judged sexual encounters every day. The 'moral duty' of these encounters whilst both parties are unable to either consent or refuse being placed on the man is clearly something that needs looking at. It sort of reinforces the overtly feminist view that all men are rapists. Maybe we should arrest anyone caught having sex whilst both parties are over the legal limit because neither could be seen to be in any fit state to give 'informed consent' ? The very idea that men or women would ever take advantage of an alcohol/drug fuelled incident??? shocking.... it used to be a mistake, from both sides that got forgotten and shuddered about in later life. I spoke to a bloke who was 'reported' for the simple fact he didn't ring the female later in the week. He didn't remember her name and hadn't put her number in his phone properly. He spent 11 hours as a 'rapist'...she picked him up, paid for taxi to her place and paid for his taxi home in the morning after repeatedly telling him she loved him??? Make it law that both parties engaged in a brief sexual encounter both write down what they expect from the evening and have it signed by an independent witness before they get blathered/off their tits and crack on None of the above makes rape any less abhorrent, but it does make it frigging hard to prove or disprove and both sides will be left without justice more times than not.
|
|
Novakaine
Jimmy Nicholson Terrier
Our Carpets Are Filthy!
Posts: 1,490
|
Post by Novakaine on Oct 14, 2014 12:38:29 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. Rape is a violent crime against any gender.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 12:41:54 GMT 1
Do you really want to compare rape with punching somebody? Not at all but punching a woman is a disgusting act also. It seems you are cutting your moral cloth to suit here. Assault is assault at the end of the day, a crime is a crime. Evans has done his time, served his sentence and should be given the same rights to rehabilitation as any other criminal. I like the idea of increased income tax to repay the state for the resources he has used. Moral cloth? Hammill was coming round from unconsciousness when he hit the paramedic, not even pre meditated. Evans decided to take advantage of a very very drunk girl. They're poles apart on moral terms, you can't even start to compare the two. Hammill was an idiot for getting so drunk, I'm not gonna deny that, and I defended Hamills right at the time to be allowed his guilt to be decided by the court, which many didn't. However, if any player of our club committed the same offence as Evans, then there's no way is grant him any kind of sympathy or compassion.
|
|
|
Post by OldRastrickian on Oct 14, 2014 12:57:58 GMT 1
What's the difference between Town and Oscar Pretorius?
He has a decent defence......and most of his shots hit the target!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2014 13:02:20 GMT 1
I think there should be tougher career sanctions against footballers who commit crimes e.g. 1-2 year bans but common law assault is a long way from rape. Level one crimes such as rape, murder, paedophilia, should be lifetime bans. Football (whether people like it or not) is the national game and receives huge media attention. It has a huge audience of under 18's and therefore has a huge social responsibility to take a leading and progressive stance in such matters. What it actually does is demonstrate the grubby, morally vacuous base aspects of society- greed, financial gain, injustice and base morality. Again, level one crimes, level two crimes... it's dodgy ground. Crimes have different levels of severity and punishments in law reflect this. These punishment should be reflected in the consequences for those in high profile media fields of work. From 1 year ban up to lifetime depending on severity. There is no ambiguity here.
|
|