Ched Evans Wins Appeal But Faces Retrial

[Captain...]

Vile woman

But occasionally she hits the nail on the head

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3551612/KATIE-HOPKINS-lynch-mob-never-forgive-Ched-Evans-successful.html

 

Not really, the people not wanting a convicted rapist to play football, didn't want a convicted rapist to play football, I also wouldn't be so quick to lay into them until after the re-trial, he may be convicted again.

 

The issue is with the courts over any mis-carriage of justice and not the people that didn't want a convicted rapist playing for their club, as I am pretty sure that they still don't want a convicted rapist playing for their club. Most people don't like convicted rapists and Ched Evans not being a convicted rapist doesn't change that.

 

I also don't blame them for not digging into all the details of the case and having a sympathetic mind set over what was a very unsettling conviction, they have their line in the sand. No convicted rapists, Ched Evans was a convicted rapist.  It will be interesting to see how people react should he be found not guilty, and even if he could rebuild his career now 4 years after his conviction, and would they let him. Should anyone object to him going back into football after being acquitted at a re-trial then Katie Hopkins can kick off the outrage spiral, but until then she comes across as an idiot complaining about people who don't like convicted rapists.

[Guest MattP]

Having sex with someone to drunk to consent is.

I just don't think she was.

 

I do find that slightly weird though, I mean I've been raped if that definition is correct.

[Captain...]

I don't think I've ever stepped over a girl laying on the floor of a kebab shop and thought "yeah, she's fully in control."

Nor can I imagine ever letting myself, sober, in to a hotel room occupied by said girl with a key I'd conned out of a receptionist, and having sex with her.

I concede to a point that I think Matt (I apologise if not) has made previously, that what Evans has done is drastically different to the common interpretation of the word "rape" and that the law quite possibly could and should make the difference.

But without that distinction, he was found guilty by a jury of his peers. What he did is and should be a crime whatever you call it. What he admitted to is itself utterly deplorable and the fact his partner stood with him is mindboggling.

If he's cleared entirely it'll be a travesty regardless of how big a pratt the girl is.

 

And that conviction has been quashed based on new evidence.

 

So even if the new evidence is the girl admitting she remembered the whole thing and remembered consenting to Evans will it still be a travesty?

 

All of his deplorable actions are irrelevant if she consented and he believed it to be valid.

[Captain...]

I do find that slightly weird though, I mean I've been raped if that definition is correct.

 

Me too, but we both know it is different for men and women, and I am sure you wouldn't be so casual about it if it was a man who had had sex with you while you were too drunk to know what was going on. 

[Guest MattP]

Me too, but we both know it is different for men and women, and I am sure you wouldn't be so casual about it if it was a man who had had sex with you while you were too drunk to know what was going on. 

 

How do you know I wasn't talking about a man?

[ClaphamFox]

I don't think I've ever stepped over a girl laying on the floor of a kebab shop and thought "yeah, she's fully in control."

Nor can I imagine ever letting myself, sober, in to a hotel room occupied by said girl with a key I'd conned out of a receptionist, and having sex with her.

I concede to a point that I think Matt (I apologise if not) has made previously, that what Evans has done is drastically different to the common interpretation of the word "rape" and that the law quite possibly could and should make the difference.

But without that distinction, he was found guilty by a jury of his peers. What he did is and should be a crime whatever you call it. What he admitted to is itself utterly deplorable and the fact his partner stood with him is mindboggling.

If he's cleared entirely it'll be a travesty regardless of how big a pratt the girl is.

 

Actually, there was contradictory evidence of the girl's level of drunkenness. Some eye witnesses say she seemed very drunk, others that she seemed in control. The girl herself remembered exactly what she had drunk (this was backed up by card receipts, etc) and said she was "tipsy, but not out of control". A medical expert said in court that the amount she had to drink would not be enough to cause memory loss. If - and this is just speculation - she has admitted to others that she does indeed remember what happened, it changes everything.

 

Obviously this case provokes strong emotions. I don't think it has helped that the conviction has become something of a rallying cry for anti-rape campaigners. They’ve set so much store by the guilty verdict, holding Evans up as the apotheosis of ‘rape culture’, that the possibility of him being innocent just cannot be countenanced by some people – they're so emotionally invested in the guilty verdict that t’s just unthinkable to them. Hence the extraordinarily violent reactions on twitter, etc to today's news.

[David Guiza]

I think part of the problem lies with our legal system. As Finnegan says, his actions should be a crime in some shape or form, even if it isn't 'rape'. Sometimes the law can be too black and white/rigid, particularly when it comes to serious offences. At this moment in time it is almost impossible to say that yes he is guilty or no he's innocent, as proved in this thread. However, to label him as a 'rapist' is perhaps too strong, but to label him as completely innocent is perhaps to naïve?

 

Whether it's a case of adapting a Scottish style 'not proven' or even to bring about a revolutionary change in law, which could perhaps be done through common law precedent over time(?), I do think this needs to be addressed. Drink and drug culture has opened the door to such issues over the past 20/30 years (perhaps further) and I don't know if the law has moved to counteract this. 

[Finnegan]

Extraordinarily violent reactions on Twitter are because people on Twitter are retarded.

There are probably countless tweets from Evans supporters calling the girl a slag. That's not really proof of anything other than social media being toxic.

[Guest MattP]

Obviously this case provokes strong emotions. I don't think it has helped that the conviction has become something of a rallying cry for anti-rape campaigners. They’ve set so much store by the guilty verdict, holding Evans up as the apotheosis of ‘rape culture’, that the possibility of him being innocent just cannot be countenanced by some people – they're so emotionally invested in the guilty verdict that t’s just unthinkable to them. Hence the extraordinarily violent reactions on twitter, etc to today's news.

 

Certainly agree with this. I still can't forget the Question Time episode after the case, you could actually see the female paw pressing down on the scales of justice by the end of it. I genuinely got the feeling from the aggressive anti-rape campaigners that it's nothing to do with justice, it's about changing society and to use an old analogy in reverse they would rather see 100 innocent men go to prison than see 1 guilty rapist go free.

 

Convictions for rape allegations are always going to be very low providing the law remains that guilt has to be proven beyond resaonable doubt as many of these cases will boil down to one word against another, even one like this where we have numerous witnesses and some CCTV it looks like we are struggling to get a verdict that anyone can have complete confidence in.

[Strokes]

I agree with the what people are saying in regards to his manipulating the encounter in a predatory way, should be a crime with some serious consequences, but it's not in itself rape and shouldn't carry the same title.

[Finnegan]

"The female paw pressing down on the scales of justice."

now you're just fishing.

[Captain...]

I think part of the problem lies with our legal system. As Finnegan says, his actions should be a crime in some shape or form, even if it isn't 'rape'. Sometimes the law can be too black and white/rigid, particularly when it comes to serious offences. At this moment in time it is almost impossible to say that yes he is guilty or no he's innocent, as proved in this thread. However, to label him as a 'rapist' is perhaps too strong, but to label him as completely innocent is perhaps to naïve?

 

Whether it's a case of adapting a Scottish style 'not proven' or even to bring about a revolutionary change in law, which could perhaps be done through common law precedent over time(?), I do think this needs to be addressed. Drink and drug culture has opened the door to such issues over the past 20/30 years (perhaps further) and I don't know if the law has moved to counteract this. 

 

 

I agree with the what people are saying in regards to his manipulating the encounter in a predatory way, should be a crime with some serious consequences, but it's not in itself rape and shouldn't carry the same title.

 

What crime are you suggesting he committed if it is proven she consented? 

 

Blagging his way into a hotel room could be classed as trespassing, although didn't he pay for the room...

 

Seeing your mate shagging a bird and asking to join in isn't a crime, as long as she consents.

 

If she didn't consent, or it wasn't valid in the eyes of the law, then it is rape, if she did then it isn't.

 

Being a general scumbag, going to a hotel room where you know your mate has a girl, asking to join in with your mate, cheating on your girlfriend, leaving her in the room and sneaking out the fire exit, all scummy things to do, but none of them are crimes.

[Strokes]

What crime are you suggesting he committed if it is proven she consented? 

 

Blagging his way into a hotel room could be classed as trespassing, although didn't he pay for the room...

 

Seeing your mate shagging a bird and asking to join in isn't a crime, as long as she consents.

 

If she didn't consent, or it wasn't valid in the eyes of the law, then it is rape, if she did then it isn't.

 

Being a general scumbag, going to a hotel room where you know your mate has a girl, asking to join in with your mate, cheating on your girlfriend, leaving her in the room and sneaking out the fire exit, all scummy things to do, but none of them are crimes.

No they aren't crimes, I'm saying maybe it should be but how you go about it I don't know. It's pretty hard to isolate it into a crime.

[David Guiza]

What crime are you suggesting he committed if it is proven she consented? 

 

Blagging his way into a hotel room could be classed as trespassing, although didn't he pay for the room...

 

Seeing your mate shagging a bird and asking to join in isn't a crime, as long as she consents.

 

If she didn't consent, or it wasn't valid in the eyes of the law, then it is rape, if she did then it isn't.

 

Being a general scumbag, going to a hotel room where you know your mate has a girl, asking to join in with your mate, cheating on your girlfriend, leaving her in the room and sneaking out the fire exit, all scummy things to do, but none of them are crimes.

If she truly consented in a fit state of mind then it isn't a crime. Immoral, illicit and many other things, but not a crime. 

 

I'm speaking purely on the basis of the facts as we know them, and without said new evidence, but I think the law could perhaps be reviewed in order to distinguish between 'rape' and  whatever this is (again, I'm only speaking on the facts of the case at present). I also think we should consider adopting degrees of murder like they have in the States. For example, I suspect most people wouldn't wish to categorise the man who grants the wish to end the life of his terminally ill wife a murderer, but under current law he would be.

I think this is somewhat similar, on current facts, I would hasten to label him a 'rapist' or completely innocent either. My opinion is that it is too black and white, at times, which is the point I was trying to make (poorly) previously before getting blown out of proportion by suggesting that a potentially innocent man should be imprisoned for the sake of goodwill.

[Captain...]

If she truly consented in a fit state of mind then it isn't a crime. Immoral, illicit and many other things, but not a crime. 

 

I'm speaking purely on the basis of the facts as we know them, and without said new evidence, but I think the law could perhaps be reviewed in order to distinguish between 'rape' and  whatever this is (again, I'm only speaking on the facts of the case at present). I also think we should consider adopting degrees of murder like they have in the States. For example, I suspect most people wouldn't wish to categorise the man who grants the wish to end the life of his terminally ill wife a murderer, but under current law he would be.

I think this is somewhat similar, on current facts, I would hasten to label him a 'rapist' or completely innocent either. My opinion is that it is too black and white, at times, which is the point I was trying to make (poorly) previously before getting blown out of proportion by suggesting that a potentially innocent man should be imprisoned for the sake of goodwill.

 

OK, I see your point here, you would want to see a distinction between a predatory rapist, who targets and attacks women and someone who thought it was consensual, but the consent wasn't valid.

 

Technically statutory rape is where consent is given but not valid because of age, but is similar to this case where it was accepted that consent was given but it wasn't valid but  because of intoxication and not age.

 

I agree that I wouldn't want someone who made a poor judgement because they were drunk (not relevant to this case as Evans was sober) to be labelled in the same way as someone who targets and attacks women.

[Rob1742]

If he gets off, the costs associated with this will be huge. He will obviously and quite rightly sue for wrongful imprisonment and the losses he has incurred from losing his career will be massive.

I am hopeful he gets off as reading the evidence, to me suggests he should. But my big issue all along was that when he had served his time, he was hounded out of football by people who believed he should not be allowed back into the profession that he previously worked in. There was nothing more than jeolousy involved as everyone should have the right to resume their career after they have paid their penalty.

[Captain...]

If he gets off, the costs associated with this will be huge. He will obviously and quite rightly sue for wrongful imprisonment and the losses he has incurred from losing his career will be massive.

I am hopeful he gets off as reading the evidence, to me suggests he should. But my big issue all along was that when he had served his time, he was hounded out of football by people who believed he should not be allowed back into the profession that he previously worked in. There was nothing more than jeolousy involved as everyone should have the right to resume their career after they have paid their penalty.

 

Does that include Adam Johnson?

 

He also hadn't completely paid his penalty, he was still on parole and subject to certain conditions. Another argument was that he had never admitted his guilt and apologised so he couldn't be classed as reformed/rehabilitated. It may turn out correctly, but whilst he was claiming he did nothing wrong but had been found guilty people took that to mean he thought he should be allowed to sleep with women who were too drunk.

 

If he had apologised and accepted his mistake and donated money to charities and appeared on tv with an excruciating hand wringing apology and plea forgiveness he could very well be playing football now, but he believed he was innocent and had to fight the conviction, which meant he couldn't apologise and for this has lost his career.

[LanguedocFox]

Vile woman

But occasionally she hits the nail on the head

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3551612/KATIE-HOPKINS-lynch-mob-never-forgive-Ched-Evans-successful.html

 

Your first phrase is correct. The rest is nonsense.

[GaelicFox]

Your first phrase is correct. The rest is nonsense.

She has been bang on here about Evans

Bang on her piece about Muslim terorrism and what British Muslims may think about it

Bang on about the McCann's

Bang on about Kanye

Bang on about Ramadam exams issue

Etc....

Just cos she is a loud mouth vile cow doesn't mean she is wrong all the time

She says it as she see's it and sometimes how she see's it strikes a chord with huge swaths of the country !

[GaelicFox]

Does that include Adam Johnson?

He also hadn't completely paid his penalty, he was still on parole and subject to certain conditions. Another argument was that he had never admitted his guilt and apologised so he couldn't be classed as reformed/rehabilitated. It may turn out correctly, but whilst he was claiming he did nothing wrong but had been found guilty people took that to mean he thought he should be allowed to sleep with women who were too drunk.

If he had apologised and accepted his mistake and donated money to charities and appeared on tv with an excruciating hand wringing apology and plea forgiveness he could very well be playing football now, but he believed he was innocent and had to fight the conviction, which meant he couldn't apologise and for this has lost his career.

For me yes it does

Football is a trade it's NOT a profession that has a code of conduct attached to the fitness to practice.

If he was a plumber he would be back fixing pipes the day after his release.

So why can't he play football ?

Obviously the abuse he would rightly get would be full on but if he wants to run the gauntlet that's his business.

It seems the rehabilitation of offenders act doesn't extend to footballers and that's criminal !

[Webbo]

She has been bang on here about Evans

Bang on her piece about Muslim terorrism and what British Muslims may think about it

Bang on about the McCann's

Bang on about Kanye

Bang on about Ramadam exams issue

Etc....

Just cos she is a loud mouth vile cow doesn't mean she is wrong all the time

She says it as she see's it and sometimes how she see's it strikes a chord with huge swaths of the country !

So what is it about her you find vile?

[GaelicFox]

So what is it about her you find vile?

She is married and not available for me to date her

[ajthefox]

For me yes it does

Football is a trade it's NOT a profession that has a code of conduct attached to the fitness to practice.

If he was a plumber he would be back fixing pipes the day after his release.

So why can't he play football ?

Obviously the abuse he would rightly get would be full on but if he wants to run the gauntlet that's his business.

It seems the rehabilitation of offenders act doesn't extend to footballers and that's criminal !

 

Footballers don't have a code of conduct but that doesn't mean it's not a profession. People don't (employers obviously do) pay for the service of footballers, so it's not a trade.

 

More to the point, footballers are role models, they're in the public eye, they have their names chanted by thousands and some go down in the history books as heroes. I didn't spend years dreaming about how I one day might get to fix a tap in a really important place, I don't chant my plumbers name, I don't have a shirt with his name on my back and I won't tell my kids about the time I witnessed him fix my boiler (Not knocking plumbers). Being a professional footballer is not a normal job and it cannot be governed by the same rules that normal jobs are.

 

I'm all for giving people a second chance generally (Evans should rightly be able to play again if the re-trial says he's innocent, even though I doubt anyone will touch him) but that doesn't mean getting back into such a privileged position for those who are guilty.

[Captain...]

For me yes it does

Football is a trade it's NOT a profession that has a code of conduct attached to the fitness to practice.

If he was a plumber he would be back fixing pipes the day after his release.

So why can't he play football ?

Obviously the abuse he would rightly get would be full on but if he wants to run the gauntlet that's his business.

It seems the rehabilitation of offenders act doesn't extend to footballers and that's criminal !

Football is a sport/business that survives because of fans and sponsors.

There is no law or standard that prevents anyone from employing Evans, but fans and sponsors are also free to withdraw their support and money because they do not want to be seen to endorse a convicted rapist. That is their right and the right of football clubs to protect their income, and no right wing hate cannon is going to convince them otherwise.

[Carl the Llama]

Never thought he was a rapist so fair enough.  He's still a fuching nonce though.