Guest ttfn Posted 3 January 2015 Share Posted 3 January 2015 Of course he is. Why wouldn't he be? He's been released, and seen to have done his time, he's a free man. He's not done his time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indierich06 Posted 3 January 2015 Share Posted 3 January 2015 Of course he is. Why wouldn't he be? He's been released, and seen to have done his time, he's a free man. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30662865 Apparently not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facecloth Posted 3 January 2015 Share Posted 3 January 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30662865 Apparently not. Ah right. Fair enough. I'm clearly gutted my favourite Maltese team won't be signing a convicted rapist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot Posted 3 January 2015 Share Posted 3 January 2015 Every single article about him starts with 'convicted rapist Ched Evans...', rightly or wrongly this bloke will never get a proper second chance at life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuntman_Mike Posted 4 January 2015 Share Posted 4 January 2015 According to the BBC he's in talks with a League One club and a press conference is due tomorrow. Such a Cov signing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Prussian Posted 4 January 2015 Share Posted 4 January 2015 According to the BBC he's in talks with a League One club and a press conference is due tomorrow. Such a Cov signing this. It's supposed to be Oldham Athletic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuntman_Mike Posted 4 January 2015 Share Posted 4 January 2015 It's supposed to be Oldham Athletic. Just seen they've been named! Poor Oldham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EGBFitness Posted 4 January 2015 Share Posted 4 January 2015 Don't get me wrong what happened is not right but think there has been over reactions in the press etc. He has always insisted his innocent and the story doesn't seem to fully ad up from what I can remember. But I believe that if Luke McCormik can can an innocent family and be allowed back into football then why can't Evans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmeh Posted 4 January 2015 Share Posted 4 January 2015 Let him get on with life. The girl probably consensted anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Blue Moon Posted 4 January 2015 Share Posted 4 January 2015 Delighted for him, assuming the formalities go through. She voluntarily went back to the hotel with him and can't remember whether or not she was raped. How he was found guilty is mind boggling. Congratulations Ched. Make up for lost time pal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike the Metal Ed Posted 4 January 2015 Share Posted 4 January 2015 It's supposed to be Oldham Athletic. First Lee Hughes, now Ched Evans. They've an eye for a slightly disgraced bargain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 Delighted for him, assuming the formalities go through. She voluntarily went back to the hotel with him and can't remember whether or not she was raped. How he was found guilty is mind boggling. Congratulations Ched. Make up for lost time pal. Good to see you have paid no attention to the facts of the case whatsoever. Don't get me wrong what happened is not right but think there has been over reactions in the press etc. He has always insisted his innocent and the story doesn't seem to fully ad up from what I can remember. But I believe that if Luke McCormik can can an innocent family and be allowed back into football then why can't Evans? McCormick didn't set out to hurt anyone. Of course he is. Why wouldn't he be? He's been released, and seen to have done his time, he's a free man. He is on license, which technically means he has not served his sentence yet and could be recalled to prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Walsh5 Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 McCormick didn't set out to hurt anyone. WTF??? He was drink driving Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 WTF??? He was drink driving Yes. Completely responsible for what happened, no doubt about that, but not intentional on his part. He also pleaded guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Fynwy Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 A good explanation of why Ched shouldn't get a team soon http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ched-evans-has-served-his-time--and-other-misconceptions-about-the-convicted-rapist-footballer-9957849.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 A good explanation of why Ched shouldn't get a team soon http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ched-evans-has-served-his-time--and-other-misconceptions-about-the-convicted-rapist-footballer-9957849.html Fully agree with all those points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadt Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 I think another term should be coined for this type of rape, what Evans did was wrong but it's not as bad as violently raping a girl, I think that's the issue for some people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LanguedocFox Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 A good explanation of why Ched shouldn't get a team soon http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ched-evans-has-served-his-time--and-other-misconceptions-about-the-convicted-rapist-footballer-9957849.html Fully agree with all those points. Personally, I think that article is piss-poor, and it's fairly clear from what she's written that she has not looked at the evidence - or, if she has, she's made her mind up anyway. The case is a very difficult one. On the one hand, he was stupid for going to the hotel room and, if he is telling the truth, agreeing to the complainant's demand that he f*** her (which is apparently what she said): she was drunk and, in the cold light of day, any man who has sex with a drunk woman is asking for trouble. On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence - other than his own statement - that he did have sex with her, and no physical evidence of rape at all. There was absolutely no DNA evidence linking him with the girl, and if he had chosen to deny it altogether, he might not even have ended up in court. I've read as much about this case as I can, including both reasoned and unreasonable commentaries. On the evidence, such as I have been able to read, it is not at all clear that he should have been found guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt". Apart from anything else, if McDonald - his co-accused - was not guilty, how the hell was he found guilty? It would not be at all surprising if, on appeal, a retrial is ordered, or the conviction is quashed. it would not be the first time that the much-vaunted British legal system had brought in the wrong verdict. What will be interesting is the attitude of people like Lucy Hunter Johnston: presumably, she will think he is guilty anyway, because all men are rapists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Blue Moon Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 I think another term should be coined for this type of rape, what Evans did was wrong but it's not as bad as violently raping a girl, I think that's the issue for some people. Wookie - it doesn't happen often, but couldn't agree more. There are different severities of rape no matter what anyone says and the guys that hold a girl down at knifepoint having carefully planned their act are worse than someone being too drunk to remember what happened having voluntarily gone to a hotel room with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HitchinFox Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 Wookie - it doesn't happen often, but couldn't agree more. There are different severities of rape no matter what anyone says and the guys that hold a girl down at knifepoint having carefully planned their act are worse than someone being too drunk to remember what happened having voluntarily gone to a hotel room with them. Unless you're female, I'm of the opinion that you simply can't make knowledge statements like that. I'd imagine losing your memory and only knowing that "something" must have happened because you are bleeding must be terrifying and pretty traumatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Blue Moon Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 Unless you're female, I'm of the opinion that you simply can't make knowledge statements like that. I'd imagine losing your memory and only knowing that "something" must have happened because you are bleeding must be terrifying and pretty traumatic. Men can get raped too. And if I'd happily spent the night drinking and flirting with a bloke who fancied me, accepted an invite back to his room, got blind drunk and woke up in the state you described I would be embarrassed with myself as much as anything. I'd certainly prefer that than the more calculated brutal grabbed in a bush at knife point situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illusion35 Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 I've read a lot about this case too, including the trial transcript which is a statement of fact rather than all the media sensationalism. It's a difficult one and he should have realised that in his position as a relatively high profile figure it was unwise/dangerous to have sex with someone who was drunk - though in the hotel video you do see her arriving at the hotel, walking unaided in high heels seemingly at ease, which brings into question just how drunk she was. I genuinely do not feel that what happened is a 'rape' and know personally of people (male and female) who have gone out, got blind drunk and woken up with someone they'd prefer not to have. None of them would dream of saying they'd been raped, more ashamed of what has happened and that they got themselves in that rather seedy situation and didn't say no. I don't think 'too drunk to consent' is the same as saying no. Rape is having sex with someone against their will - I can't see the evidence which proves this is actually what happened in this case at all. I hope he is allowed to appeal what seems a very unsafe conviction. I also think he should be allowed to resume his football career without all this mass hysteria. I'm female - interestingly my husband totally disagrees with my opinion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 Fully agree with all those points. I don't some of them are terrible. This one for is the worst Is he never allowed to work again? Of course he is! But a rape conviction automatically excludes you from a vast number of professions. A convicted rapist couldn’t be a teacher, doctor or police officer, for example. No, but they're allowed to be footballers so that sort of ends that argument. How you can draw a comparison between jobs in the public sector with carry heavy responsibility with professional football I don't know. Unless you drag out the footballers are role models argument which is completely laughable in itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ttfn Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 I don't some of them are terrible. This one for is the worst No, but they're allowed to be footballers so that sort of ends that argument. How you can draw a comparison between jobs in the public sector with carry heavy responsibility with professional football I don't know. Unless you drag out the footballers are role models argument which is completely laughable in itself. Needless to say she dragged out the "footballers are role models" argument. Probably the worst article I've read on this case. There's nuance that people apparently intelligent enough to write for respectable national newspapers are totally unwilling to engage with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Blue Moon Posted 5 January 2015 Share Posted 5 January 2015 Needless to say she dragged out the "footballers are role models" argument. Probably the worst article I've read on this case. There's nuance that people apparently intelligent enough to write for respectable national newspapers are totally unwilling to engage with. Agree, it's an utterly abysmal one-sided article scratching around desperately for any argument that fits her agenda. The bit about being too drunk to remember entering the hotel in particular. When it suits them these feminists are all for human rights, but the right to rehabilitation seems to be forgotten when they've got a chance to have a dig and gang up on a bloke. They are bullys, hypocrites and cowards. It's like it's payback time for the male race oppressing them for so many years, here's a sniff of a chance to get some revenge so let's jump on it. This country has laws about rehabilitating offenders, and there isn't one saying a convicted rapist can't play football, so like it or lump it they need to accept the law or campaign to get it changed. And even if it was a proper rape that would be the case. I really hope Oldham don't bottle it, but fear they will bow to the pressure. If they do, I'd welcome him with open arms here. And if it meant a few women returned their season tickets all the better ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.