Finnegan Posted 12 January 2015 Share Posted 12 January 2015 I'm not condoning what Ched Evans did in the slightest but I also find it a bit odd convicted murderers can get back into football but he can't. They're both horrific crimes but I think most people would say murder is the worst out the two. Murder? Sorry, we're not talking about death by dangerous driving, are we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpaM Posted 12 January 2015 Share Posted 12 January 2015 Murder? Sorry, we're not talking about death by dangerous driving, are we? Fine I'll edit it to homicide, I don't think it makes it that much better though tbh I just don't see how someone who's done something like running somebody over after drinking 15 pints and killing them is any less of a crime tbh. Everybody keeps throwing the 'role model' card around but how can somebody who's done that get givin a free ride. Take Lee Hughes for example, signed for oldham practically straight after he was released, bet the victims family were well happy about that! And then there's Luke McCormick, how is somebody who's drank in excess and then killed two small children in a car any more responsible than Ched Evans?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 12 January 2015 Share Posted 12 January 2015 Murder? Sorry, we're not talking about death by dangerous driving, are we? Clearly not murder but when coupled with driving when excessively under the influence it's pretty bad, two very young children are dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimmerchant Posted 12 January 2015 Share Posted 12 January 2015 Only mistake here is he didn't wait for justice to run it's course , if he failed in his review of the conviction then he had to apologise and take the nessicary steps towards rehabilitation and then he would have had a chance at getting a team again The PFA , Evans himself and the FA have made a right horlicks of this , a right balls up I strongly believe the conviction WILL be quashed , not because he is innocent of any crime but because there are fundamental flaws in the arguments to convict and the Twitter account of the "victim" seems to offer a serious insight into her thinking on the matter. Also there seems to be strong rumours 3 people are in line for £10,000 payments for assisting evens garnet evidence that discredits the "victim" and the case His arrogance that led him into that mess doesn't seem to have rescinded much after his stay in a state hostel BUT being arrogant doesn't make one a rapist Ross McCormack killed two children and returned , he showed real remorse and shame Evans will either be cleared , or have to the same Interesting to see how this plays out I don't think you mean Ross McCormack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScouseFox Posted 10 February 2015 Share Posted 10 February 2015 Professional lawyer on North west news here saying anyone who plans to blag a bird on a night out must take a genuine consent form for them to sign. Presumably somewhere between foreplay and it going in. Oh and the signing of the form has to be witnessed by a sober onlooker. This is genuinely happening on actual news. Really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filbertway Posted 11 February 2015 Share Posted 11 February 2015 Professional lawyer on North west news here saying anyone who plans to blag a bird on a night out must take a genuine consent form for them to sign. Presumably somewhere between foreplay and it going in. Oh and the signing of the form has to be witnessed by a sober onlooker. This is genuinely happening on actual news. Really. Feels like this has the potential for an episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nalis Posted 11 February 2015 Share Posted 11 February 2015 Professional lawyer on North west news here saying anyone who plans to blag a bird on a night out must take a genuine consent form for them to sign. Presumably somewhere between foreplay and it going in. Oh and the signing of the form has to be witnessed by a sober onlooker. This is genuinely happening on actual news. Really. It thats the case, swap the words bird with guy and I've been raped on several occasions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Fynwy Posted 11 February 2015 Share Posted 11 February 2015 It thats the case, swap the words bird with guy and I've been raped on several occasions...The definition of rape in English law requires penetration of the victim by a penis, did you really want to admit that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nalis Posted 11 February 2015 Share Posted 11 February 2015 The definition of rape in English law requires penetration of the victim by a penis, did you really want to admit that? you got me there son! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted 16 February 2015 Share Posted 16 February 2015 There is a bit in 50 Shades of Grey which basically says "If you struggle, I will tie your feet, and if you make a noise, I will gag you" so I said you can't like 50 Shades AND hate on Ched Evans Edit: Just seen this on Facebook, true say though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samilktray Posted 16 February 2015 Share Posted 16 February 2015 There is a bit in 50 Shades of Grey which basically says "If you struggle, I will tie your feet, and if you make a noise, I will gag you" so I said you can't like 50 Shades AND hate on Ched Evans Edit: Just seen this on Facebook, true say though? Weird logic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnegan Posted 16 February 2015 Share Posted 16 February 2015 There is a bit in 50 Shades of Grey which basically says "If you struggle, I will tie your feet, and if you make a noise, I will gag you" so I said you can't like 50 Shades AND hate on Ched Evans Edit: Just seen this on Facebook, true say though? The characters in Fifty Shades are fictional, for a start, but they're also both willingly aware and consenting to participate in a sado masochistic fantasy act. Basically, sorry Ash, but that's a pretty daft comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedford Fox Posted 6 October 2015 Share Posted 6 October 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-34441348 Case going to appeal court Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankieWorthoYaggedMyWife Posted 6 October 2015 Share Posted 6 October 2015 The idea that someone is too drunk to consent to one man but not another has always seemed spurious. I'm not saying I like the man or his morals but if it is as he says and she was a willing participant who then changed her mind you have to have a bit of sympathy bearing in mind he has had his career ruined and served a hefty stretch. People are quick to judge and name and shame people, i doubt there will be widespread apologies if (and probably when) he is cleared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnegan Posted 6 October 2015 Share Posted 6 October 2015 How on earth are people still baffled by this? Evans let himself in to the room later in the evening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankieWorthoYaggedMyWife Posted 6 October 2015 Share Posted 6 October 2015 How on earth are people still baffled by this? Evans let himself in to the room later in the evening. Her yes was good enough for one person, then an hour later she said yes again, whether he let himself in or not? But this time she was too drunk for it to mean anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oxlong Posted 6 October 2015 Share Posted 6 October 2015 How on earth are people still baffled by this? Evans let himself in to "the room" later in the evening. Not a very chivalrous way to refer to lady parts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 6 October 2015 Share Posted 6 October 2015 How on earth are people still baffled by this? Evans let himself in to the room later in the evening. But that is irrelevant, if she gave consent, whatever happens before sex is of no consequence apart from consent which can be given and taken away in a second. Letting himself into the room doesn't stop her from consenting. What does count is how drunk she because that invalidates consent any illegal, sordid or unpleasant activities performed beforehand do not, unless they are in some why trying to trick or coerce someone into sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 6 October 2015 Share Posted 6 October 2015 Her yes was good enough for one person, then an hour later she said yes again, whether he let himself in or not? But this time she was too drunk for it to mean anything? I'm not going to end up in endless debate about this again.....not least as the appeal is going to be heard because of "new evidence", which might change things. However, the key distinction that the court saw between Evans and his mate was whether each could reasonably, if mistakenly, have believed that the girl was able to consent: - McDonald got talking to the girl in the street and she got in a taxi with him (confirmed by witnesses), she was talking to him OK in the taxi (confirmed by taxi driver) and she walked into the hotel with him (confirmed by CCTV). - Evans' only previous meeting with her was when she fell over in a kebab shop and he stepped over her; he then received a text from McDonald saying he'd "got a bird", made his way uninvited to the hotel, conned a room key from the receptionist and let himself in. Only Evans and McDonald say she consented - and in their evidence they gave different accounts as to which of them had asked for consent for Evans. The 2 blokes said that they had sex with her (she didn't remember) and the court clearly felt that she was too drunk to consent to EITHER of them. The jury clearly took the view that McDonald might reasonably have thought he had consent, based on the witness accounts described above, but that Evans could not have reasonably thought the same, based on the evidence described above. Anyone can dispute the jury's interpretation - though it takes breath-taking arrogance to do so, based on a few newspaper reports, when the jury presumably spent several days examining the actual evidence, including witnesses. It beggars belief, though, that anyone cannot see how a jury might have given 2 different verdicts. It seems blindingly obvious to me: a girl chatting to you in the street, getting into a taxi with you and walking into your hotel room with you, all in front of witnesses v. a stranger lying in your mate's hotel room, which you enter uninvited after conning a key, are 2 very different scenarios. Of course, if new evidence has emerged that exonerates Evans, then he is entitled to have his name cleared. I wonder what the new evidence is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 6 October 2015 Share Posted 6 October 2015 Rumours the crackers they hired have recovered the tweets and Facebook messages from her account where she sends stuff to friends about how she's reporting it so she can make a few quid out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wymsey Posted 6 October 2015 Share Posted 6 October 2015 They are both to blame, end of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankieWorthoYaggedMyWife Posted 7 October 2015 Share Posted 7 October 2015 Rumours the crackers they hired have recovered the tweets and Facebook messages from her account where she sends stuff to friends about how she's reporting it so she can make a few quid out of it. She allegedly promised to buy her mate a new mini.... she also has form for making accusations about sportsman - a rugby player in the past I think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnegan Posted 7 October 2015 Share Posted 7 October 2015 Rumours the crackers they hired have recovered the tweets and Facebook messages from her account where she sends stuff to friends about how she's reporting it so she can make a few quid out of it. This is so old news. Yes she's a bit of a nob but the police perused it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 7 October 2015 Share Posted 7 October 2015 The police couldn't find these and they weren't produced at the trial were they? Surely if they had proof of these now it would be classed as new evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonnieTodger Posted 7 October 2015 Share Posted 7 October 2015 They are both to blame, end of. Thanks, Your Honour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.