Jump to content

Ched Evans


For ever htfc.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 335
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Luke, this is the thing that concerns me most, it's that a lot of people think that it's alright, Ched Evans did, He didn't know the law (and still doesn't it seems despite having gone through it) and that doesn't protect his innocence.

If you are thinking 'oh she's wasted, I'll go for her' you're being a sexual predator and are liable to be convicted of rape if you go through with it. There is something deeply wrong with the fact that people are being encouraged to do that, go into nightclubs where you just take your pick and are actively encouraged to 'violate a fresher' to lift a slogan from a particularly scummy nightclub in Leeds.

Nobody's entitled to have sex without the other person's consent, and consent cannot be given if someone's drunk, so if in doubt don't do it.

Having sex with someone without consent is a violent act used against women, it is still rape whether he punches her or not for rape on its own is an horrific form of assault. You don't want to be having to console a victim before you understand, it's distressing as hell I can tell you now.

On your last point- You think once a lady's been sloosed by two bulky guys that her vagina's gonna feel fresh as a daisy the morning after?

I have to concede that he's spent time in prison, and yes he doesn't have to apologise though we'll see whether he does when his conviction isn't overturned. And yes, though he is an awful human he still has his rights to work and rejoin society, technically, even if he's not going to try and change his ways through denying any wrongdoing.

Anyway, away from the law, you don't have to be a judge to see that this man is a complete and utter c*nt. People are only defending him at all cos he's a footballer. If he had a non-famous day job he would still be in prison for what he did and nobody would be protesting his innocence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really not buying this "you cannot give consent if you're drunk" bollox - by that reckoning I've been raped several times over Christmas. Are we seriously supposed to be able to gauge whether someone is sober enough to be able to give consent or not? Even if someone consents to having sex, we're then supposed to use mystical powers to determine whether or not that consent is valid depending on how much they've had to drink?

 

What everyone conveniently seems to be ignoring here is that two different people had sex with her that night and both were charged with rape. One was convicted and the other was not. If the only reason that the rape charge stands is because she was deemed to be too drunk to have given consent, how on earth can this apply to just one of the two men who had sex with her?

 

Evans appears to be absolute prat and I wouldn't want him anywhere near Halifax Town either way, but I can't help feeling there's been an almighty miscarriage of justice here.

 

 

 

Having sex with someone without consent is a violent act used against women

 

Your opinion here is interesting because it raises a pertinent question. If both Evans and the lass had claimed to be too drunk to remember what had happened, but there were obvious signs that they'd had sex together, could Evans have accused her of rape? After all, by the logic used to convict him, he was too drunk to have given consent? Or can only females be the victims?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really not buying this "you cannot give consent if you're drunk" bollox - by that reckoning I've been raped several times over Christmas. Are we seriously supposed to be able to gauge whether someone is sober enough to be able to give consent or not? Even if someone consents to having sex, we're then supposed to use mystical powers to determine whether or not that consent is valid depending on how much they've had to drink?

 

What everyone conveniently seems to be ignoring here is that two different people had sex with her that night and both were charged with rape. One was convicted and the other was not. If the only reason that the rape charge stands is because she was deemed to be too drunk to have given consent, how on earth can this apply to just one of the two men who had sex with her?

 

Evans appears to be absolute prat and I wouldn't want him anywhere near Halifax Town either way, but I can't help feeling there's been an almighty miscarriage of justice here.

 

 

 

 

Your opinion here is interesting because it raises a pertinent question. If both Evans and the lass had claimed to be too drunk to remember what had happened, but there were obvious signs that they'd had sex together, could Evans have accused her of rape? After all, by the logic used to convict him, he was too drunk to have given consent? Or can only females be the victims?

Yes there was a miscarriage of justice............the guy who got off should have been convicted................ 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The case should never have gone to court, it was and continues to be a massive waste of time and money with far reaching damaging affects, nothing in the case sets a presidence for future cases .

Having said all that, I'm with Not Hoddie, Ched Evans dose seem an absolute prat (I don't think we would be able to ban him from future visits to Halifax Town centre or the Shay - and I don't recall any problems reported on his previous visits) but I would prefer a united NO to any suggestion that he may at some point join FC Halifax Town

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been following this thread with interest. As it happens, my wife is a legal inspector. As such, she is well acquainted with those in the higher reaches of the CPS and has ready access to court transcripts and judges' remarks. It means I've been able to have a good look at the evidence in this case, and what Evans's legal team presented to the Court of Appeal. I have to say, presented with the same evidence, had I been on the original jury, I would have reached exactly the same conclusion. One innocent, the other guilty. The facts speak for themselves. And the facts surely have to be more compelling than opinion based on what someone thinks they know, founded invariably either on incomplete information gleaned from newspaper reports or hearsay.

 

Given the extreme reactions to the possibility of Evans being offered contracts by Sheffield United and Oldham Athletic, it seems fairly obvious, unless his conviction is overturned, he won't ever again work as a professional footballer in Britain.

 

And what are the chances of his conviction being overturned? Zero, says my wife, who has the double advantage of knowing the law and being au fait with the evidence in the Evans case.

 

I should add (belatedly) my wife hasn't seen - or allowed me to see - anything that isn't in the public domain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been following this thread with interest. As it happens, my wife is a legal inspector. As such, she is well acquainted with those in the higher reaches of the CPS and has ready access to court transcripts, judges' remarks, Law Society correspondence etc. It means I've been able to have a good look at the evidence in this case, and what Evans's legal team presented to the Court of Appeal. I have to say, presented with the same evidence, had I been on the original jury, I would have reached exactly the same conclusion. One innocent, the other guilty. The facts speak for themselves. And the facts surely have to be more compelling than opinion based on what someone thinks they know, founded invariably either on incomplete information gleaned from newspaper reports or hearsay.

 

Given the extreme reactions to the possibility of Evans being offered contracts by Sheffield United and Oldham Athletic, it seems fairly obvious, unless his conviction is overturned, he won't ever again work as a professional footballer in Britain.

 

And what are the chances of his conviction being overturned? Zero, says my wife, who has the double advantage of knowing the law and being au fait with the evidence in the Evans case.

Well put................

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is a legal inspector? not being funny but i have never heard of one.

 

Can't say I had until we met. It's a statutory role undertaken by qualified solicitors who examine, and report on, the work and procedures of the Crown Prosecution Service (and similar bodies) to ensure they're being done properly. The process ensures (or aims to ensure) public money isn't being wasted or misspent. And, of course, justice is served.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't say I had until we met. It's a statutory role undertaken by qualified solicitors who examine, and report on, the work and procedures of the Crown Prosecution Service (and similar bodies) to ensure they're being done properly. The process ensures (or aims to ensure) public money isn't being wasted or misspent. And, of course, justice is served.

Sounds like a waste of money to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If she was too drunk to consent with Evans then she was too drunk to consent with Donaldson, pure and simple. Both guilty or neither guilty.

 

Legal people can study the court documents till the cows come home. Evidence has surfaced since that puts even more doubt on the verdict, this evidence is not in court documents yet.

 

Chew on that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends, I guess, whether you think such bodies being allowed to police themselves is a good thing.

Agreed - my comment was partly tongue in cheek. The thing is though, who polices the body that polices the other body? Where does it end?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you believe only females can be raped?

 

So you believe only females can be raped?

 

If in the 70's this (Under the present law that I believe was changed in 2003) was applied   I was raped on numerous occasions after my nights at The Bulls Head. I would wake in the morning and ask who the **** are you? Several women took advantage of my inebriated state. Compensation for these historical sex crimes would be enough to revamp my beloved Skircoat Shed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone knows 99% of the time sexism and racism only work one way round, let's be honest chaps.

 

That is why you have to stand up and confront the people who make that happen, The Mob.

 

Do not cower before their insults that they parrot to one and all and most definitely not to their threats.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Luke, this is the thing that concerns me most, it's that a lot of people think that it's alright, Ched Evans did, He didn't know the law (and still doesn't it seems despite having gone through it) and that doesn't protect his innocence.

If you are thinking 'oh she's wasted, I'll go for her' you're being a sexual predator and are liable to be convicted of rape if you go through with it. There is something deeply wrong with the fact that people are being encouraged to do that, go into nightclubs where you just take your pick and are actively encouraged to 'violate a fresher' to lift a slogan from a particularly scummy nightclub in Leeds.

Nobody's entitled to have sex without the other person's consent, and consent cannot be given if someone's drunk, so if in doubt don't do it.

Having sex with someone without consent is a violent act used against women, it is still rape whether he punches her or not for rape on its own is an horrific form of assault. You don't want to be having to console a victim before you understand, it's distressing as hell I can tell you now.

On your last point- You think once a lady's been sloosed by two bulky guys that her vagina's gonna feel fresh as a daisy the morning after?

I have to concede that he's spent time in prison, and yes he doesn't have to apologise though we'll see whether he does when his conviction isn't overturned. And yes, though he is an awful human he still has his rights to work and rejoin society, technically, even if he's not going to try and change his ways through denying any wrongdoing.

Anyway, away from the law, you don't have to be a judge to see that this man is a complete and utter c*nt. People are only defending him at all cos he's a footballer. If he had a non-famous day job he would still be in prison for what he did and nobody would be protesting his innocence.

But how do you know that's what he was thinking? There's no proof he only had sex with her because she was sober. But it Is accepted because that's what happens. My friend took a girl home on Thursday from everyone's favourite nightclub who was drunk, but he didn't rape her. In regards to this some people say evans just turned up. Well morals kind of come into this and I think he was sent down because people can't see how a woman would say yes to 2 men on the same night.

As not hoddie says, why does that only work one way? Was Evans checked for his alcohol intake? Just because he remembers doesn't mean he was in full control. He cheated on his girlfriend, so Id imagine more than likely when sober it wouldn't have happened.

Everyone knows he won't apologise because that would just be conceding he did it. Even if it's not overturned, he's still going to maintain he didn't do it. We've all been accused of something, but if we feel so strongly, we aren't going to concede defeat? And let's be honest, even though he's found guilty by a jury, it's not FULLY proven. Someone is lying and without video evidence, we will never know who. He's done his stint in jail, it's time to let him get on now.

People are "protesting" (which Id like to call discussing) the case because it's all being played out in the public eye in a sport that means a lot to us. Just like anything else high profile, because we are hearing about it all the time

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...