Ched Evans Wins Appeal But Faces Retrial

[James.]

It very much is about the technicalities, it's this kind of opinion that gives me serious concern

 

My opinion is based on the facts of the case. Not the interpretation of the jury or the interpretation of Ched Evans or anyone in this thread. Just the facts.

[Alf Bentley]

 

EDIT: ---snip---

 

The issue shouldn't be how drunk she was, but how drunk she was perceived to be, because the crime has to be in the intent of Ched and McDonald and not in her state of inebriation. The fact that Ched is still claiming his innocence, makes me think he doesn't in any way think he took advantage of her, remember he had just met her at that point, not really spoken to her, not seen her stumbling or staggering around or pissing in the street. They probably didn't talk much and probably assumed that McDonald wasn't raping a drunk girl (as was later proved to be true).

 

@Alf and anyone calling him a rapist, do you honestly believe he had intent to rape or take advantage of a drunk girl?

 

I don't know what his intentions were. Maybe he went there hoping for sex, maybe hoping to have a laugh at McDonald's expense.

 

I notice that you edited out a reference to Evans not having met her before. Because, of course, he had (briefly) when he stepped over her as she lay drunk on the floor of the kebab shop earlier on. Did he really not recognise her when he saw her? Did he also not recognise that she was absolutely steaming? The hotel porter certainly did when she and McDonald arrived at the hotel - he testified to that effect. 

 

Doesn't matter, though. As there was no clear evidence on consent and no sign of violence, the jury considered:

(a) Was she in a fit state to consent?

(b) Could either of the men have reasonably considered that she had consented?

Presumably the jury decided (a) that she was unable to consent; (b) that McDonald could have reasonably thought her talking to him in the street and joining him in the taxi to the hotel implied capable consent, unlike whatever happened with Evans (for which there is almost no neutral evidence).

 

You're obviously not happy with that. In the absence of new evidence, I am. Your other points have already been discussed to death (though I'm glad you also edited out the McDonald comparison; it's obvious from the case papers why the 2 cases are different).  

 

 

Gary Glitter is a notorious and sexual predator who actively sought out children to abuse, so no, but that is not even remotely comparable to a Ched Evans who made one mistake.

 

As for your arsonist, it all depends why, what was his intention: Was it a hate crime? A terrorist attack? Or a mistake committed in his youth?

 

Has he admitted his crime and asked shown remorse?

Was he drunk when he did it (are you legally able to consent to arson if you are too drunk)?

Can this crime be turned into a terrace chant?

 

Your remorse point is a good one and I, for one, would be inclined to take a much softer line if someone showed truly genuine remorse (provided their crime wasn't off the scale). But Evans has shown no remorse whatsoever for the way he treated the girl, only for upset to girlfriend, family etc (he probably wouldn't even have done that if he'd not been caught). And, before you come back at me, he certainly could claim wrongful conviction and still apologise for the trauma he caused the girl.

 

I assumed a hate crime re. the arson.

 

I notice that you don't address my other question as to what I tell my daughter when thousands of fans start chanting for Evans "scoring when he wants". 

 

 

Anyone allowing their children to see footballers as role models, are terrible parents.

 

Children see footballers as heroes (not necessarily role models). Anyone taking their children to football should be able to do so in the knowledge that their kids' heroes are not rapists.

 

Parents allowing their children to think that rape might be funny or acceptable are terrible parents. I certainly wouldn't expose my daughter to that.

[Strokes]

I don't know what his intentions were. Maybe he went there hoping for sex, maybe hoping to have a laugh at McDonald's expense.

 

I notice that you edited out a reference to Evans not having met her before. Because, of course, he had (briefly) when he stepped over her as she lay drunk on the floor of the kebab shop earlier on. Did he really not recognise her when he saw her? Did he also not recognise that she was absolutely steaming? The hotel porter certainly did when she and McDonald arrived at the hotel - he testified to that effect. 

 

Doesn't matter, though. As there was no clear evidence on consent and no sign of violence, the jury considered:

(a) Was she in a fit state to consent?

(b) Could either of the men have reasonably considered that she had consented?

Presumably the jury decided (a) that she was unable to consent; (b) that McDonald could have reasonably thought her talking to him in the street and joining him in the taxi to the hotel implied capable consent, unlike whatever happened with Evans (for which there is almost no neutral evidence).

 

You're obviously not happy with that. In the absence of new evidence, I am. Your other points have already been discussed to death (though I'm glad you also edited out the McDonald comparison; it's obvious from the case papers why the 2 cases are different).  

 

 

 

Your remorse point is a good one and I, for one, would be inclined to take a much softer line if someone showed truly genuine remorse (provided their crime wasn't off the scale). But Evans has shown no remorse whatsoever for the way he treated the girl, only for upset to girlfriend, family etc (he probably wouldn't even have done that if he'd not been caught). And, before you come back at me, he certainly could claim wrongful conviction and still apologise for the trauma he caused the girl.

 

I assumed a hate crime re. the arson.

 

I notice that you don't address my other question as to what I tell my daughter when thousands of fans start chanting for Evans "scoring when he wants". 

 

 

 

Children see footballers as heroes (not necessarily role models). Anyone taking their children to football should be able to do so in the knowledge that their kids' heroes are not rapists.

 

Parents allowing their children to think that rape might be funny or acceptable are terrible parents. I certainly wouldn't expose my daughter to that.

Not every footballer has to be a hero though, you have can villains too, which is also something kids need to learn.

[Captain...]

She didn't consent, jury said so. He conned the keys off the front desk, his website says so. He was clearly letting himself in because there was a girl in there.

I personally don't get why some people find some of this so vague. Read his own website. I actually found it quite damning.

 

His actions are one of a scumbag, but he has not been tried as scumbag but as a rapist, but do you think he let himself in with the intention of raping her?

[C-man]

I think it sends a very worrying message that in a game already fulled by lad culture and overt sexism / misogyny we would welcome back someone who so disgustingly took advantage of a woman. This isn't about the technicalities around whether it was rape or not, it's about taking the opportunity to have some moral courage. Ched Evans is perfectly within his rights to want to come back, it's up to us to have the balls to say no.

I'm struggling to see the sense behind this post. Allowing an individual who has been convicted of rape back to work isn't misogyny, and preventing someone from exercising their right to return to work following completion of their sentence isn't showing moral courage.

That being said, I would not be surprised if he ends up playing abroad. There doesn't appear to be any option for Sheffield United here other than to block his return to English football, or risk being pilloried. He'll probably end up being paid a wedge in Saudi Arabia.

[Captain...]

I don't know what his intentions were. Maybe he went there hoping for sex, maybe hoping to have a laugh at McDonald's expense.

 

I notice that you edited out a reference to Evans not having met her before. Because, of course, he had (briefly) when he stepped over her as she lay drunk on the floor of the kebab shop earlier on. Did he really not recognise her when he saw her? Did he also not recognise that she was absolutely steaming? The hotel porter certainly did when she and McDonald arrived at the hotel - he testified to that effect. 

 

Doesn't matter, though. As there was no clear evidence on consent and no sign of violence, the jury considered:

(a) Was she in a fit state to consent?

(b) Could either of the men have reasonably considered that she had consented?

Presumably the jury decided (a) that she was unable to consent; (b) that McDonald could have reasonably thought her talking to him in the street and joining him in the taxi to the hotel implied capable consent, unlike whatever happened with Evans (for which there is almost no neutral evidence).

 

You're obviously not happy with that. In the absence of new evidence, I am. Your other points have already been discussed to death (though I'm glad you also edited out the McDonald comparison; it's obvious from the case papers why the 2 cases are different).  

 

 

 

Your remorse point is a good one and I, for one, would be inclined to take a much softer line if someone showed truly genuine remorse (provided their crime wasn't off the scale). But Evans has shown no remorse whatsoever for the way he treated the girl, only for upset to girlfriend, family etc (he probably wouldn't even have done that if he'd not been caught). And, before you come back at me, he certainly could claim wrongful conviction and still apologise for the trauma he caused the girl.

 

I assumed a hate crime re. the arson.

 

I notice that you don't address my other question as to what I tell my daughter when thousands of fans start chanting for Evans "scoring when he wants". 

 

 

 

Children see footballers as heroes (not necessarily role models). Anyone taking their children to football should be able to do so in the knowledge that their kids' heroes are not rapists.

 

Parents allowing their children to think that rape might be funny or acceptable are terrible parents. I certainly wouldn't expose my daughter to that.

 

His Intentions were most likely to burst in on him having sex, that was why his mates were out there filming it through the window, but maybe it is a common thing for the 2 of them to have threesomes with random girls, I don't know. but it is not a crime to burst in on your mate having sex, nor is it a crime to have a threesome. This is why his intention is important.

 

I edited the bit about him seeing her before as I had waffled on too long, but I doubt he made any connection with some random drunk girl in a chip shop a few hours previous.

 

How do you recognise if a girls is absolutely steaming while she is having sex with another man? They didn't have a chat first about what sexual positions she liked, or how much she had had to drink that night.

 

There is no evidence of consent, other than corroborating stories from Evans and McDonald given freely before being charged with anything, there is also no evidence of her not giving consent nor any evidence of her state of inebriation during the event only prior.

 

I don't know Ched, but this has been pretty high profile and I'm pretty sure some more victims would come out the woodwork if this was typical behaviour. I don't believe it was his intention to rape or take advantage of her.

 

Yes she was very drunk, but if she consented and it appeared to be a valid consent at the time, that only he will know, then I don't see how he can be found guilty of rape and have his life ruined.

 

Unless you believe his intention was to rape her or take advantage of her drunkenness. I don't, and neither does he, he must know he would get an easier ride if he admitted his guilt and showed remorse, but he hasn't for a reason. That reason is that he genuinely believes that at that time she was a willing participant.

 

As for explaining that chant, did you explain the you only score in La Manga chant to anyone? If they are old enough to understand you do, if they aren't you just make something up or say you don't know.

[Corky]

Really good post Alf but disagree on the Marlon King 50-50 comment. This is a repeat offender, having committed various crimes and has gone to jail three times. Second chances are possible to be given but he's had more than enough and I would hate it for him to be associated with Leicester City.

[breadandcheese]

I don't know what his intentions were. Maybe he went there hoping for sex, maybe hoping to have a laugh at McDonald's expense.

 

I notice that you edited out a reference to Evans not having met her before. Because, of course, he had (briefly) when he stepped over her as she lay drunk on the floor of the kebab shop earlier on. Did he really not recognise her when he saw her? Did he also not recognise that she was absolutely steaming? The hotel porter certainly did when she and McDonald arrived at the hotel - he testified to that effect. 

 

Doesn't matter, though. As there was no clear evidence on consent and no sign of violence, the jury considered:

(a) Was she in a fit state to consent?

(b) Could either of the men have reasonably considered that she had consented?

Presumably the jury decided (a) that she was unable to consent; (b) that McDonald could have reasonably thought her talking to him in the street and joining him in the taxi to the hotel implied capable consent, unlike whatever happened with Evans (for which there is almost no neutral evidence).

 

 

 

I know I'm jumping into a someone's conversation but there is now neutral evidence.  There is McDonald's testimony.  He is an innocent man in the eyes of the law and so his testimony is one of witness to the event.  

[Gary Eatfood]

I'm not suggesting that Ched Evans should play professional football again but, given that both Lee Hughes and Luke McCormick were allowed to play again after causing death by dangerous driving surely a precedent has already been set?

[Alf Bentley]

Not every footballer has to be a hero though, you have can villains too, which is also something kids need to learn.

 

Yes, villains can be fun. On-the-field villains, even minor off-the-field villains, but not the unrepentant perpetrators of gut-churning crimes...and certainly not to cheer on the latter.

 

Cheer our "villains" like Dickov or Wasilewski, boo their "villains" like Barton, Suárez, Rooney, Warnock or Ashley, yes. But I wouldn't want LCFC to employ Fred West and Hitler just to educate kids that there are horrible people out there - and, on a much lower level, I wouldn't want them to sign Evans or Marlon King (my 50-50 comment about King meant that I'd be 50-50 about handing my season ticket back if he signed, Corky, and the more I think about it the less I like it).

 

His Intentions were most likely to burst in on him having sex, that was why his mates were out there filming it through the window, but maybe it is a common thing for the 2 of them to have threesomes with random girls, I don't know. but it is not a crime to burst in on your mate having sex, nor is it a crime to have a threesome. This is why his intention is important.

 

[...]

 

There is no evidence of consent, other than corroborating stories from Evans and McDonald given freely before being charged with anything, there is also no evidence of her not giving consent nor any evidence of her state of inebriation during the event only prior.

 

I'm pretty sure some more victims would come out the woodwork if this was typical behaviour. 

 

Yes she was very drunk, but if she consented and it appeared to be a valid consent at the time, that only he will know, then I don't see how he can be found guilty of rape and have his life ruined.

 

[...] 

 

As for explaining that chant, did you explain the you only score in La Manga chant to anyone? If they are old enough to understand you do, if they aren't you just make something up or say you don't know.

 

I know I'm jumping into a someone's conversation but there is now neutral evidence.  There is McDonald's testimony.  He is an innocent man in the eyes of the law and so his testimony is one of witness to the event.  

 

You almost seem to believe that crime without intent is impossible, Captain. Yet we have manslaughter as well as murder, and GBH with and without intent. If Evans had clearly intended to rape her, he'd have got a longer sentence.

 

McDonald's story partly corroborates but partly conflicts with Evans' account. According to Evans' own site (http://chedevans.com/key-and-undisputed-facts) each claims that the other asked the girl for consent for Evans to join in. Surely that's the sort of detail you'd remember (they were sober, remember)? Not very credible evidence! Wouldn't McDonald have been innocent in the eyes of the law, anyway, as he was never convicted of anything?

 

Consent wasn't an issue, anyway, only capacity to consent and whether Evans could reasonably have assumed consent. Even with McDonald's testimony, the judge was satisfied that she was incapable of consenting (https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans) and presumably the jury agreed, based on the CCTV footage, witness statements and expert testimony. There is some evidence about her inebriation during the event in the expert testimony (2.5 times legal drink-drive limit, equivalent to approx. 200mg or 10 units in blood) - that's an expert for the defence. There's also the fact that she pissed the bed and clearly didn't know what had happened (returned to hotel asking to see CCTV footage to find out how she got there; went to police complaining that her drink had been spiked and bag stolen, not that she had been raped).

 

I don't remember the La Manga chants, though I well remember the events, as I'm an adopted Leicester fan (BOOOO!!). I grew up as a Folkestone Town fan, but they went bust in 1991, and I moved to the Leicester area in 2001 through my now wife, who's a local. Only started attending matches occasionally from 2005 or so (busy working, getting married and having a kid before that), then season ticket holder from 2008. I'm quite happy to explain difficult stuff to my daughter (I've already had to explain what "rape" means, after she heard it on the news), but would be unable to explain why thousands of people were cheering a footballer who was a convicted and unrepentant rapist - so would have to stop taking her and, frankly, wouldn't want to attend myself.

 

The rest of your points have either been argued to death or are matters of opinion on which we'll have to agree to disagree. I've posted too much about this already, so will leave it there unless something really new is said.

[Captain...]

You've still not answered the question. Do you think he intended to rape her? I know crimes don't necessarily require intent. But this more related to his attempts to get his career/life back on track.

If I thought his intention was to rape someone and he deliberately and knowingly took advantage of a drunk girl and is unrepentant. Then he has no place in football. If he made a mistake in wrongly assuming her consent was valid. Then I think he has a right to try and get his life back on track.

[Jordan]

You've still not answered the question. Do you think he intended to rape her? I know crimes don't necessarily require intent. But this more related to his attempts to get his career/life back on track.

If I thought his intention was to rape someone and he deliberately and knowingly took advantage of a drunk girl and is unrepentant. Then he has no place in football. If he made a mistake in wrongly assuming her consent was valid. Then I think he has a right to try and get his life back on track.

He didn't make a mistake in assuming her consent was valid--he either committed a serious crime either assuming a piss-drunk girl that already had another (bigger than her, I'm assuming) guy on top of her, ****ing her, was ever in a position to consent in the first place, or he committed a serious crime by just deciding he never needed her "consent" anyway.

I don't know why we're all still arguing about this, tbh.

[MPH]

Alf, Ched Evans offense has no relevance to the career he wants to continue in.  If Ched Evans wanted to work in a woman's refuge, then I would say that would be inappropriate, but he is in a career where in his day job, he will not be exposed to women where he could take advantage of.  He is no more risk of being unemployed or as a footballer, other then the fact that in his personal time, women will be more attracted to him, but to rape, he could do either, easy enough in either role!!

 

 

This is purely opinion, not fact.

 

 

wether he likes it or not, wether you like it or not,  and believe me, i really dont like it... so, wether its right or wrong, footballers ARE seen as role models. End of.

 

 

Coupled with the fact that sponsors  seek to enhance their brand's reputation by being associated with another brand their potential customers see as something good. However they now see him as having a negative inpact on their brand and are  threatening to end their sponsorship with Sheff United  if they take him on as a player,

 

In short, then there appears to be relavance wether we like it or not.

[Sir Fynwy]

BBC are not replaying old TOTP episodes with any of the sex offenders in them, this gives an idea of how sex offenders are viewed by the general public

[fleckneymike]

Oh **** off with that, the point I was illustrating was very clear. You've done well there haven't you. 

 

One would hope morality is very clear that being wealthy does not imply you can have things taken from you......    drinking to the point where you are no longer in control leaves you in danger from numerous sources. It might not be right (oh look I've done it again) but people out there will look to exploit people who are intoxicated so therefore it is good idea not to get that drunk in the first place. 

 

You can butt out of this anyway, if your going to butt into someone else's arguement you could at least take the time to read what is being discussed,  obviously you haven't and your missing the point, that was written in response to someone saying that trying to teach a young girl not to drink so much that she can't control herself is akin to telling her she can't wear a short skirt. I am illustrating why it is not.

 

I am sorry if you have taken offence but I am afraid your point was not very clear and that is why I queeried whether the use of 'might' was intentional or accidental. I have read the entire thread and much of the disagreement centres around people's opinions on what qualifies as consent and the role and responsibility of a drunk person in any assault.

 

You made the point that a person who is intoxicated should be aware that they are liable to being vulnerable to an assault (sexual or otherwise), it is that point which I fundementally disagree with (so does the legal system) as that implies a degree of responsibility on the part of the drinker.

[Guest ttfn]

I absolutely cannot (can anyone?!) condone Evans' actions on a moral level, and I can see the argument that he should have gone to jail for his actions.

But I am extremely uncomfortable with him being labelled a "rapist" and having to sign on the sex offenders register like violent criminals and child abusers, and being effectively outcast by a huge chunk of society.

Somebody above talked about it being possible for somebody to commit a crime without intending to (or being aware they were doing so) and that has clearly been taken into account in Evans' prison sentence.

Where it has not been taken into account is in his post-prison rehabilitation, where he will forever face the stigma of being a rapist, despite the fact that the judge has clearly recognised that his offence is nowhere near as bad as plenty of other offences.

And before anybody says "so that makes it ok then?" or tries to twist this into something it's not; all I'm saying is that we need to have a different definition and label for this sort of crime, which is clearly at least as far away from what we as a society understand to be rape as manslaughter is from murder.

[ADK]

I am sorry if you have taken offence but I am afraid your point was not very clear and that is why I queeried whether the use of 'might' was intentional or accidental. I have read the entire thread and much of the disagreement centres around people's opinions on what qualifies as consent and the role and responsibility of a drunk person in any assault.

 

You made the point that a person who is intoxicated should be aware that they are liable to being vulnerable to an assault (sexual or otherwise), it is that point which I fundementally disagree with (so does the legal system) as that implies a degree of responsibility on the part of the drinker.

 

Surely her behaviour was irresponsible though?

[fleckneymike]

Surely her behaviour was irresponsible though?

 

I am not being deliberately obtuse but could you explain how she was irresponsible please?

[Captain...]

He didn't make a mistake in assuming her consent was valid--he either committed a serious crime either assuming a piss-drunk girl that already had another (bigger than her, I'm assuming) guy on top of her, ****ing her, was ever in a position to consent in the first place, or he committed a serious crime by just deciding he never needed her "consent" anyway.

I don't know why we're all still arguing about this, tbh.

 

What does having sex with another man have to do with capacity to consent, unless you are saying McDonald now raped her.

 

If she wasn't drunk and did what she did, then no crime is committed.

 

We are still arguing this because comments like yours show a lack of understanding of the case. He is not a predatory rapist and I maintain he made a mistake in judging her to be sober enough to give consent. He didn't decide he didn't need it, he asked for consent and believed he received it, his mistake was believing it was valid and not correctly assessing her state of inebriation. As has been said there was no evidence of any force or violence being used and if she had remembered it then there would have been no crime. I do believe that if he had considered her to be too drunk, and that he was raping her he wouldn't have done it, that her state of inebriation would have cost him his livelihood, his career, his freedom, then there is no way he would have slept with her, and no way he would have freely admitted it to the police afterwards.

 

His reported actions after the incident to me are one of someone who believes he was having consensual sex with an adult and had done nothing wrong.

[Alf Bentley]

You've still not answered the question. Do you think he intended to rape her? I know crimes don't necessarily require intent. But this more related to his attempts to get his career/life back on track.

If I thought his intention was to rape someone and he deliberately and knowingly took advantage of a drunk girl and is unrepentant. Then he has no place in football. If he made a mistake in wrongly assuming her consent was valid. Then I think he has a right to try and get his life back on track.

 

You're more of a "dog with a bone" than I am myself! My answer was implied last time, but I'll state it, if you want.

 

No, I don't think he went there intending to rape her, as in aggressively force himself upon her. I find the scenario of him turning up, with 2 others, to take the piss out of his mate "on the job" quite believable. Maybe he also hoped to get in on the act. Maybe it was a bit of both. Quite likely he felt that, as the most famous footballer there, he had a right to have sex with any girl that his hierarchically inferior mate had brought back provided she or he didn't actively refuse....but only the 2 footballers know that. Worth noting that neither of the other 2 blokes got actively involved, though. One thing that's not been explained is what happened to the other friend who was supposedly going to stay with McDonald at the hotel booked by Evans. Did he exist or was it always going to be McDonald and Evans, preferably with a bit of meat? Did McDonald text Evans that he was "with a bird" to invite him over, as planned, or was he just letting him know out of consideration despite the fact that Evans was staying with his family?

 

No, it's possible that one of them did ask for permission for Evans to join in shagging this paralytic girl he'd never knowingly met, having entered the bedroom uninvited. It's also possible that nobody asked the girl if he could join in (the fact that the 2 of them disagreed as to who had asked encourages this view) - he just felt he had the right to shag her because he was Ched Evans (he may or may not have noticed that she was paralytic). So he shagged her, she didn't resist, he scarpered down the fire escape and she lay there and pissed the bed in her sleep. "Gut-churning and sordid" doesn't do justice to it. "Crime" and "serious sexual abuse" maybe does, or "statutory rape" (I take the point that a terminological distinction might be required vis-à-vis the violent rape of a woman capable of giving/refusing consent).

 

He has no place in football, certainly unless he very genuinely and very publicly recognises how he has wronged her (even if he really thought at the time that she had consented). If he did, he could have an important role, talking to young people about how NOT to behave towards women. Some Leicestershire lad does that for drink driving - he visits schools with the mother of his mate, who died as a passenger in the car that he (first lad) was driving drunk. Truly admirable.

 

If Sheff Utd or anyone else sign him up now and play Leicester, I couldn't face attending but would want to join any reasonable organised protest.

[AdamN]

I absolutely cannot (can anyone?!) condone Evans' actions on a moral level, and I can see the argument that he should have gone to jail for his actions.

But I am extremely uncomfortable with him being labelled a "rapist" and having to sign on the sex offenders register like violent criminals and child abusers, and being effectively outcast by a huge chunk of society.

Somebody above talked about it being possible for somebody to commit a crime without intending to (or being aware they were doing so) and that has clearly been taken into account in Evans' prison sentence.

Where it has not been taken into account is in his post-prison rehabilitation, where he will forever face the stigma of being a rapist, despite the fact that the judge has clearly recognised that his offence is nowhere near as bad as plenty of other offences.

And before anybody says "so that makes it ok then?" or tries to twist this into something it's not; all I'm saying is that we need to have a different definition and label for this sort of crime, which is clearly at least as far away from what we as a society understand to be rape as manslaughter is from murder.

 

I get the feeling this subject is a bit of a minefield, so I opted to stay clear after trying to put this point into words, but you've pretty much summed up exactly how I feel about the aftermath of this case. To me, the word 'rapist' carries much more serious connotations - i.e. absolutely no doubt about the lack of consent, someone who has forced themselves upon someone else, perhaps violently so - as I'm sure it does to the majority of the general public, given the reaction to his release and possible reemployment. Despite the severity of his crime, I wouldn't find it too dissimilar if Luke McCormick was labelled a 'murderer'.

[Jordan]

What does having sex with another man have to do with capacity to consent, unless you are saying McDonald now raped her.

If she wasn't drunk and did what she did, then no crime is committed.

We are still arguing this because comments like yours show a lack of understanding of the case. He is not a predatory rapist and I maintain he made a mistake in judging her to be sober enough to give consent. He didn't decide he didn't need it, he asked for consent and believed he received it, his mistake was believing it was valid and not correctly assessing her state of inebriation. As has been said there was no evidence of any force or violence being used and if she had remembered it then there would have been no crime. I do believe that if he had considered her to be too drunk, and that he was raping her he wouldn't have done it, that her state of inebriation would have cost him his livelihood, his career, his freedom, then there is no way he would have slept with her, and no way he would have freely admitted it to the police afterwards.

His reported actions after the incident to me are one of someone who believes he was having consensual sex with an adult and had done nothing wrong.

No, we are still arguing about this because people like you cannot put yourselves in the woman's shoes and see how she is in a powerless situation once Evans intruded into the scene.

I think I've got a pretty good upbringing of the case, considering I've seen everything you've seen and my "verdict" matches the jury's.

Ched Evans rationalizing his behavior doesn't make his behavior any less wrong or any less illegal.

[ADK]

I am not being deliberately obtuse but could you explain how she was irresponsible please?

Drinking too much.

Being on her own.

Going back with a man she didn't know to a place she didn't know.

[Dan LCFC]

No idea what to make of it. The whole case sounded a bit dodgy to me and I think rape is probably the biggest grey area out of any crime you can commit. How can you possibly tell who was telling the truth?

 

Either way, he was found guilty and although I'm not completely sure on it, I'll have to go with the judges verdict here.

 

Football's welcomed back murderers in the past so I don't know why rapists would be any different. Is Ched Evans who hasn't played for a couple of years even going to be of much use to Sheff Utd? Is he even that good?

 

It's such a weird situation which I find hard to really have an opinion on.

[Sir Fynwy]

Stewards at football matches have to disclose all offences even spent ones under the rehabilitation of offenders act but players don't. It doesn't really apply in Cheds case since 4 year terms never become a spent conviction and always have to be disclosed to employers.