# Ched evans..



## Tom_TTSline (Feb 3, 2014)

So this guy is convicted of rape, tried in a court of law, found guilty and given a sentence.

Now regardless of the history around the rape he was done and served his time as a punishment. The media seem to be going way over the top about playing football again.. Why not? He's done his time and been punished - What's the issue?

People should be punished for their crimes, and Ched Evans already has been. After his punishment is complete, he's a free man, and should be able to do whatever he likes.

I can understand for example, not allowing convicted paedophiles to enter the teaching profession, or not allowing animal abusers to own any pets, or something like that; because it's feared that it might give them the opportunity to revert back to their criminal ways. But not allowing a convicted rapist to play football? I'm afraid I don't see the connection between rape and football. Of course the issue is whether or not any football club actually wants to sign him, rather than an actual enforced ban on playing football.

Having said that, I have some mixed views on whether or not the punishment he received is actually sufficient. I believe that the sentence for a convicted rapist should be much harsher than just a couple of years in prison, and then being let out again to play football or to do whatever else you want. However, should he have even been convicted in the first place? I don't necessarily think so. "Too drunk to consent" is always going to be a wishy-washy business.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29980279


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Too drunk to concent is a very iffy area indeed, as Is the whole charge of rape. 
Rape victims groups will always maintain rape is rape no matter the circumstances. But you cannot get away from the simple fact that some bint getting steaming and jumping into bed with a football "star" and some poor girl getting dragged into a park by 4 sober men and violently raped are TOTALLY different.

Difficult one.


----------



## Tom_TTSline (Feb 3, 2014)

brian1978 said:


> Too drunk to concent is a very iffy area indeed, as Is the whole charge of rape.
> Rape victims groups will always maintain rape is rape no matter the circumstances. But you cannot get away from the simple fact that some bint getting steaming and jumping into bed with a football "star" and some poor girl getting dragged into a park by 4 sober men and violently raped are TOTALLY different.
> 
> Difficult one.


The most confusing thing is, 2 lads went back with her that night. 1 got found not guilty, the other guilty. Something doesn't quite add up.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Tom_TTSline said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> > Too drunk to concent is a very iffy area indeed, as Is the whole charge of rape.
> ...


Didn't follow the case, but some rape convictions can be very ropey indeed, it's all too easy for a slapper to cry rape because the guy shuns her the following morning.

My cousin was charged with rape after he slept with a girl. It turned out the cow was a girl friend of his estranged wife's. She slept with him and cried rape in an attempt to stop him getting visiting rights to his son. She admitted to It all under police examination.

No charges were brought against her or his b1tch of a wife :?


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

In principle, I have to agree with the OP. Whether the sentence was adequate or not is another matter but it was imposed by a court of law which heard all the evidence and assessed all the witnesses and surrounding circumstances, so the man has served the sentence imposed on him. Mike Tyson returned to the ring after imprisonment for a similar offence so I don't see any essential difference.

The argument of course is that these people are public figures who should expect their behaviour to be spotlighted in the media and it's common for sponsors etc. to shun them when they step out of line so they know the ground rules going in. If Jimmy Saville were alive today and had been punished for his awful crimes I can't see many people wanting to see him back in any celebrity public role, let alone campaigning for it.

Difficult one, and not always a simple black and white solution.


----------



## Tom_TTSline (Feb 3, 2014)

igotone said:


> In principle, I have to agree with the OP. Whether the sentence was adequate or not is another matter but it was imposed by a court of law which heard all the evidence and assessed all the witnesses and surrounding circumstances, so the man has served the sentence imposed on him. Mike Tyson returned to the ring after imprisonment for a similar offence so I don't see any essential difference.
> 
> The argument of course is that these people are public figures who should expect their behaviour to be spotlighted in the media and it's common for sponsors etc. to shun them when they step out of line so they know the ground rules going in. If Jimmy Saville were alive today and had been punished for his awful crimes I can't see many people wanting to see him back in any celebrity public role, let alone campaigning for it.
> 
> Difficult one, and not always a simple black and white solution.


Thing is, look at lee Hughes, and Luke McCormick, both went to jail for manslaughter, and now back playing football - and arguably that is worse.


----------



## fatboy13 (Feb 19, 2014)

Personally, I don't think allowing him back into football where he'll be a role model for kids & young people is the right thing to do. Those other players should never have been allowed back either.

Footballers are put on high enough pedestal as it is, it shouldn't be for kids to think that they can get away with violent crime & still be a star.

Although Tyson came back, it seems as though Americans are changing their tune; just look at all the high profile NFL players (such as Ray Rice) having contracts terminated for beating their wives and kids.

Just my 2p


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

This also highlights an area of the law where most people are a little uncomfortable with the burden of proof required to secure a conviction. Rape in all its forms is a crime that deserves punishment but under UK law an individual is innocent until proven guilty, not just suspected. Those that are arrested have very little defence from the publicity generated because, unlike the accuser, they do not benefit from anonymity in an attempt to bring other people forward. What may have seemed like a good idea at one o'clock in the morning, drunk or not, may not seem so clever the next day. A change of mind may have immense repercussions for the alledged rapist and very little for the alledged victim. Although in this particular case I believe that the accuser has suffered some hardship.

Often, only two people know what really happened and in that case, under English law, the accused has to be given the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

Tricky one. How many on here would expect to serve a rape conviction and then walk back into their old job?

On the other hand wasn't there a snooker player a few years back (Aussie?) who was accused of rape, lost all his sponsorship, fell out of the rankings as couldn't play whilst waiting to go to court, and then case collapsed? And recall the Graham Rix (underage case, so slightly different, but similar) got jailed for sex with a 15 year old at a Xmas party in a hotel. He'd previously split from his wife and this bird pulled him. Whe it came to court all these pictures of her in school uniform etc, but later pics appeared of her on the night out, and looked 10 years older... He is now a sex offender and can't coach...

As someone said above, only 2 people know the truth in each case. I totally agree that rapists should be punished, but maybe sometimes there's another story...

I've got really mixed feelings on this one..


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

ag said:


> Often, only two people know what really happened and in that case, under English law, the accused has to be given the benefit of the doubt.


That's what is the nub of the matter - only two people actually know what happened and it's often just one persons word against the other,

Under the law rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will by....

*FORCE* (Physically overpowering the victim which is extremely difficult and signs of force will be left on the victim's body...

*FEAR* Terrifies the victim into submission..

*FRAUD* Unusual one, but e.g. doctor tells patient only having sex can cure her illness, or geezer jumps into bed with his neighbours wife in the dark. (It does happen)

The offender can also be deemed to be reckless as to whether she actually consented or not.

These cases can be a nightmare to deal with and many of the complaints are retracted at the initial interview stage or later before the case gets to court.

I can certainly remember two gang rape cases that were stomach churning in the details of the violence and abuse of the victims. Rape is a very very ugly offence! Certainly though I remember a few young girls where the excuse when retracting their complaint was "I thought I might be pregnant" or "I was really late home and I thought me dad would kill me"


----------



## Mr Funk (Apr 27, 2014)

25 year old, unrepentant, convicted rapist denies crime he was convicted for and wants high paid, responsible job back where he comes into contact with members of the public.
It's that simple. If he was a "normal" bod is this same situation I'd imagine people wouldn't be quite so supportive.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Good point - he's never shown any remorse whatsoever.


----------



## samgilding (Feb 5, 2014)

He hasn't shown remorse becuase he still maintains his innocence - something I for one beleive him about, although others won't but that is a different discussion.

For me he's done his time now and been punished for what he's done - why should he have to undergo a lifetime of punishment by stopping him from getting back into what he loves doing? Maybe I would have a different opinion if it had been a pre meditated violent rape but at the end of the day he was probably nearly as pissed as her and made a bad decision. I think it will be a great shame if he doesn't play again and am glad to see the PFA are backing him.


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

What I can read into this case is the possibility of:

Drunk girl meets celebrity and gets stars in her eyes especially as he pays her attention. She goes to bed with celebrity, not really knowing what she is doing due to inebriation. Wakes up with celebrity and with hangover and realises they had been overly intimate (something she would never do if sober). Complains to police she was raped.

It is now her word v celebs word as to whether it was consensual.

I am not saying that is what happened, but in this case, and with the limited facts that I am aware of, it does appear that this MAY be what happened in this case.


----------



## Tom_TTSline (Feb 3, 2014)

Tough one, isn't it?

Lee Hughes committed manslaughter yet there wasn't this ridiculous media circus flying about like there is on Evans - Given the available evidence how the f*** he was convicted in the first place I'll never know!! Three times she's cried rape.

Anyway. He's served his time. He's got every right to carry on with his life. I'm sickened by the appalling outcry over a man trying to find work.

Life ruined by the ultra feminist media.


----------



## samgilding (Feb 5, 2014)

Spot on mate. It's all been political and he's been made an example of in someone else's much bigger game. Sheff Utd have not helped themselves or him, if they had wanted him back they should have come out and said it as soon as it before he was released, if I decision had been set in stone from the get go then there wouldn't have been all this farce with petitions etc trying to dissuade them from re-signing him.

Also, I wonder how many other footballers/celebs are now shitting them selfs after what's happened here? A fucking lot I tell you now.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Tom_TTSline said:


> The most confusing thing is, 2 lads went back with her that night. 1 got found not guilty, the other guilty. Something doesn't quite add up.


That's not quite true Tom. McDonald picked up the girl and on the way back to his hotel room (booked for him by Evans) he texted Evans saying "I've got a bird" It's common ground that the girl was already very,very drunk. On arriving at the hotel McDonald took the girl to his room.

Shortly afterwards, Evans turned up and after some difficulty, managed to persuade the night receptionist to give him a spare key to McDonald's room. On entering the room he watched McDonald have sex with the girl following which Evans too had sex with her while two of their mates video'd the proceedings through a window.(Charming)

McDonald left first via reception and Evans left via a fire escape to avoid being seen again by the receptionist. When interviewed later by police Evans said... 'We could have had any girl we wanted in that nightclub. We were drinking, having fun there. It's not uncommon we pick up girls. Clayton's an attractive guy. We are footballers, that's how it is. Footballers are rich, they have got money, that's what the girls like."

In his summing up to the jury the trial judge pointed out that the circumstances under which Mc Donald met the girl were very different to the circumstances under which she first met Evans, so I'm not surprised that they took the view that Evans was at least guilty of recklessness as to whether or not she consented to sex with him.

None of this of course alters your original argument that he's served his time etc., but he's a high profile public figure. Would there be howls of protests and petitions in support of Rolf Harris returning to our TV screens, or any of the other high profile figures who've fallen from grace recently? Quite the reverse I think, so I don't see why Evans should be treated any differently because he's an exponent of 'the beautiful game.'

Personally, I'm left with little sympathy for him, if only for his arrogance and stupidity in not seeing the danger he was putting himself in and as someone remarked in this thread earlier - I bet there are plenty of pro footballers biting their nails down to the elbows over this case.


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

Regardless of the outcome, he's obviously got pretty low morals, sloppy seconds and mates filming him with a p***** bird, and he reckons he could have got off with any one of many. Why the drunk bird then?


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

I seem to remember a certain Tony Blair f***ing millions of people without their consent and then sneaking off out the back door when no-one was watching. :?


----------



## Mr Funk (Apr 27, 2014)

Political fit-up, didn't do it, she's possibly to blame.
Don't really see it's valid.
They are professional athletes, they want to command some respect, they want to earn more in a week than some of us earn in a year, they should prove themselves worthy of that respect.
Unfortunately we've created this culture of celebratory. 
Doesn't mean that getting munted and bobbing slags is acceptable behaviour
Convicted by a jury of his peers etc etc


----------

