Jump to content

Ched Evans


For ever htfc.

Recommended Posts

Very good article by Martin Samuels on the whole mob attack on Evans.

 

Puts an interesting angle on it.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2899404/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Ched-Evans-victim-mobs-going.html

 

Very well written. So many people could do with reading that however no doubt the article somehow constitutes as sexist or something :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 335
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Someone on the radio has just pointed out Ched Evans has not served his time, he is still under his 5 year sentance, but just serving it non custodial

And. He is entitled to earn a living as long as it doesn't contravene the terms of his non custodial sentance.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Luke McCormick sent 2 young children to their graves, how come he is allowed to play?

Maybe because he's apologised, learnt his lesson and won't do it again; whereas it seems Ched would happily rape another woman tomorrow because he doesn't accept forcing himself on a woman too drunk to consent to sex is wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Evans is allowed to play

I refer to the media scramble...BBC went to the stage of ringing all 72 FL clubs to see if they would sign him.

If we allow child killers to play which is what Luke McCormick effectively is then why not rapists? Which crime crosses the threshold and does not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I refer to the media scramble...BBC went to the stage of ringing all 72 FL clubs to see if they would sign him.

If we allow child killers to play which is what Luke McCormick effectively is then why not rapists? Which crime crosses the threshold and does not?

It really is a difficult one and I think most people can see both sides of the argument

Link to post
Share on other sites

I refer to the media scramble...BBC went to the stage of ringing all 72 FL clubs to see if they would sign him.

If we allow child killers to play which is what Luke McCormick effectively is then why not rapists? Which crime crosses the threshold and does not?

 

I'm not really sure on either case.

 

But another point - should we let 'wrong' decisions in the past affect making the 'right' decision now?

 

Christ that came out more pretentious than I meant it to but you get the point  :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic has probably raised more debate than any other subject on the forum, it is also one in which no group will ever agree.

Firstly the article in the mail on line is possibly one of the best journalistic pieces written by them as it floats in and out of both sides of the debate therefore creating questions on both sides.

Secondly I am amazed SDS admits to reading MOL.

Thirdly, It did not raise the fact that he has not yet actually served his time as he claims and he could be in breach of his license conditions by encouraging hatred against his victim.

 

My own personal beliefs are that whether guilty or not to get yourself into the position he is in you have to be  self centered, controlling egotisticle human being and one who has been very ill advised, a position Flea, going on your previous posts and what I know of you from being on line, you will never find yourself in.

 

Oldham have made a very strange decision, business wise as they have already lost 1 sponsor and are about to lose another plus they are risking the fans voting with their feet a question only time will tell and one they cannot afford.

 

Guilty or not guilty we will never know........Right or wrong depends on which side of the fence you sit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe because he's apologised, learnt his lesson and won't do it again; whereas it seems Ched would happily rape another woman tomorrow because he doesn't accept forcing himself on a woman too drunk to consent to sex is wrong?

 

Evans maintains he is innocent, why would he apologise?, that does not make sense. He would be apologising for something he did not do. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe because he's apologised, learnt his lesson and won't do it again; whereas it seems Ched would happily rape another woman tomorrow because he doesn't accept forcing himself on a woman too drunk to consent to sex is wrong?

He has apologised publicly for infidelity to his girlfriend. If he doesn't believe he his guilty of rape (and as he is still appealing i guess he doesn't) then why should he believe an apology is necessary. He may have committed the crime in which case he is a despicable human being but he also may be the victim of a miscarriage of justice (it happens) something which the hysterical public and media seem to have conveniently forgotten.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Evans maintains he is innocent, why would he apologise?, that does not make sense. He would be apologising for something he did not do. 

Absolutely. Too many grey areas in the case, hinging on whether or not the woman in question  consented or not. She didn't say no, but then she didn't say yes, the side her lawyers and advisers have taken in all this. I don't believe Ched Evans is a sexual predator - but a court of law finds him guilty, though that in itself, doesn't mean he is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He has apologised publicly for infidelity to his girlfriend. If he doesn't believe he his guilty of rape (and as he is still appealing i guess he doesn't) then why should he believe an apology is necessary. He may have committed the crime in which case he is a despicable human being but he also may be the victim of a miscarriage of justice (it happens) something which the hysterical public and media seem to have conveniently forgotten.

Bish asked why the two criminals are treated differently, I'm proposing a reason. A criminal that accepts his crime can be rehabilitated, currently Evans can't. If he wants to carry on denying it he can, but can't expect the public to accept him until he does.

At the end of the day he's currently a convicted rapist who shows no remorse or acknowledgement of the trauma his victim has suffered. I don't give a f**k what his web site shows, highly selective fragments of 'evidence' from a one-sided viewpoint. When that Daily Fail columnist did the hatchet job on Town due to showing the fouls by us a few weeks back there was outrage on here for it's one-sided nature; now some on here accept Evan's Web site to be Holy Writ.

I read somewhere recently that something like 8% of reported rapes make it to court, and something like 8% of those result in a guilty verdict. A judge presided over this trial where ALL the evidence was presented, 12 of his peers declared him guilty. Two appeal courts reviewed the evidence and found the conviction to be safe. At this point I am content that the conviction is safe.

Therefore, someone who is convicted against those odds, then shows no empathy or remorse but is actively trying the discredit the victim of an horrific assault does not deserve a place on a football field in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bish asked why the two criminals are treated differently, I'm proposing a reason. A criminal that accepts his crime can be rehabilitated, currently Evans can't. If he wants to carry on denying it he can, but can't expect the public to accept him until he does.

At the end of the day he's currently a convicted rapist who shows no remorse or acknowledgement of the trauma his victim has suffered. I don't give a f**k what his web site shows, highly selective fragments of 'evidence' from a one-sided viewpoint. When that Daily Fail columnist did the hatchet job on Town due to showing the fouls by us a few weeks back there was outrage on here for it's one-sided nature; now some on here accept Evan's Web site to be Holy Writ.

I read somewhere recently that something like 8% of reported rapes make it to court, and something like 8% of those result in a guilty verdict. A judge presided over this trial where ALL the evidence was presented, 12 of his peers declared him guilty. Two appeal courts reviewed the evidence and found the conviction to be safe. At this point I am content that the conviction is safe.

Therefore, someone who is convicted against those odds, then shows no empathy or remorse but is actively trying the discredit the victim of an horrific assault does not deserve a place on a football field in my opinion.

 

For the record i am not using the Evans website for the basis of my argument merely pointing out that he is appealing the decision and so until the decision of that appel is finalised he can't go on record apologising for something that he claims not to have done. If this final appeal is thrown out then i agree he shouldn't be stepping out on a football pitch, though in the meantime i still don't believe he should be signing contracts when the appeal is ongoing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If ched Evans had dragged a woman off the street and raped her in a violent assault then I'd be of the opinion that he shouldn't be allowed to resume his career. This was something different though. I don't believe, even if his guilty verdict is upheld, that he poses a risk to the public in general. He was found guilty, sentenced by a judge who will have taken into account the rules on 50% of jail time being served when he passed sentence, and now has served that time. So long as he continues to comply with the probation requirements then he should be allowed to become a member of society again.

He has proven himself to be an arrogant prick with a very immature outlook on women and sex, but there are going to be many young men, players and fans, who've been involved in similar situations up and down the country.

The biggest issue in all this is the word rape. Ched Evans is jailed for rape and there's outcry and mob rule demanding he never plays football again. Marlon King is jailed for sexual assault and no one really bats an eyelid when he is released and resumes his career.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing with this rape is it wasn't violent. Gon out on Saturday night in town and see how many lads take lasses home who are absolutely smashed. It happens week in week out.

Another point regarding not serving his time. If the court tells him he can leave after 2.5 years, he isn't going to turn around and say keep me for the rest. So really, is it Evans fault he has been released early or the government rulings?

Thirdly, why would he apologise for doing it when he is appealing the decision. It's almost an admission of guilt. Surely any appeal would be thrown out if he turned round and said sorry. Admittedly he could say sorry for the aggro etc, but not the "rape" itself.

In relation to your point dm about "horrific assault", how so? No attack was made and both Evans and McDonald say she said yes.

Ive read elsewhere she's traumatised by the incident. How can this be possible if she can't remember what happened?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a piece I got from a blog which I thought sums it up nicely.

 

The outcry against Ched Evans ever getting back to a football career is nothing more than hypocritical moral vigilantism. Self-appointed morality police deciding who can get back to rebuilding a life after they have been sentenced and served the time.
Ched Evans, Clayton McDonald and the complainant's behaviour was an all inclusive set of wrong behaviour, all three played a part in the incident that became labelled as a rape crime, but an equally heinous crime now is being perpetrated by many members of the general public whose sense of fair morality they now self-twist all out of emotive and subjective proportion.
How McDonald was acquitted and yet Evans convicted is a twist of incomparable stupidity. Two men have alleged non-consensual sex with a woman and yet only one gets labelled a rapist and ends up in prison. Even McDonald himself states he doesn't understand why. The only way logic could see this working is that consent was given to McDonald, but not to Evans, and if that is the case, then Evans must have forced himself upon the woman?
Yet the woman in court testified under oath that she cannot remember the actual sex act taking place, so apparently inebriated was she that she was incapable of giving consent or rejection. Thus, when questioned by police, both Evans and McDonald told the truth that they both performed a sex act with the woman, but only after consent. If Evans, in the eyes of the law raped the complainant, then so did McDonald, because the complainant was too drunk to give consent to either of the two men.
There are other mitigating circumstances about this case that are disturbing, but right now, what is particularly disturbing is the moral vigilantism being directed towards Evans who could not have possibly been given a fair conviction. It looks to me like he has been made a scapegoat and made an example of?
Both men acted reprehensibly with the woman and took advantage of her inebriation and lowered inhibitions. The complainant's own behaviour that night was in the least a downgrade of safe sober morality and self-responsibility, even before she took up with McDonald outside the Kebab shop. She agreed (allegedly) to go back to the room with McDonald under her own aegis, so how could she have been 'too' drunk to give consent?
Let us all bear in mind that McDonald was a total stranger to her, yet, within minutes of meeting him, she had agreed to go back to his room. Who was putting who in a potentially harmful situation? She herself was.
Nevertheless, and this cannot be said enough, at all times a woman is sovereign over her own body and mind...absolutely. If she is incapable of not giving consent to a sex act, it is 'NO'! If she is flat out unconscious, it has to be taken as a 'NO'! No one should interfere with her in anyway at all. If the complainant's defence of being too drunk to give consent is true, then both men are guilty of non-consensual sex, and both should have been convicted. It cannot be any other way. Therefore being convicted on the prosecutor's evidence, Evans did not receive a fair conviction, and is now receiving a more unfair trial by society.
McDonald meanwhile, gets to continue his footballing career, where's the outcry for that? The Sun newspaper keeps banging the moral drum over Evans, but not so much as a peep from a tin whistle over McDonald, but then again, Sun reporters are hardly people we would all go to seek moral advice from, as they themselves are in court for crimes against members of society.
The principal of law has to be applied to everyone equally, lawfully principled and fair, and the hounding of Evans to stop him from rebuilding his life, has got to be unlawful, and it is time it was stopped.

 

Elysiumfire

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...