Jump to content

Ched Evans

For ever htfc.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 335
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There was someone on the balcony area sat watching in the first half who resembled him but I couldn't work out who it was, I think JJ might have been with him but he went and mixed it with some fans sat in seats below the balcony.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A previous poster introduced the subject of social class. I don't think it has any relevance, either for Evans or the victim. Others might disagree.


It has a lot to do with it as over 20 MP's and government Ministers involved in child sex and murder have not been arrested even though there is strong evidence against them (from Labour MP not Shaytrev Investigations).


If it was you or I we would be banged up now and our mugshots would be front page.


Plus as already mentioned the General Election is not far away. Do you think it right they are allowed to stand?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can`t believe this is still rumbling on here.


Anyway, my tu`peneth on it:-

As it stands, Evans is a convicted rapist. He is out on licence, not yet served his sentence.

Should he be allowed to work within his chosen profession? Absolutely yes.

Should any prospective employers have to endure threats including those of violence? Absolutely NO.

Would I protest if he signed a contract at The Shay (for Town, I mean, the other lot.... well....) No, it is a decision for the custodians of this and any other club.

Would I turn up and pay to see him play for the club? Not a chance.


Any there lies the crux of the matter. Take away the `mob rule` rabid element, and at the end of the day it`s down to individuals. Weighed against the `supporters` who would prostitute their own younger sister if a `name` would sign for their club, there are many more that have a different moral stance.


IF he is at any time in the future found to be not guilty, then the whole scenario changes. Not sitting through the whole trial I can only be guided by the decision reached by those who did so. Thats the system we have and although not perfect it`s served us pretty well on the whole. If we start second guessing (like ol` knobhead Steve Bruce), then would it not be equitable to treat people found not guilty as if the have committed the offence?


Dangerous direction to head down.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of heat on this thread but depressingly little light.


This link (to the judgment) might help:




Also of interest:


Consent in the legal definition of rape has two parts:


(1) did the victim consent? The court will look at whether they had the capacity to and were free to make a choice about consent, so intoxication or e.g. mental disability are relevant here; and


(2) did the defendant reasonably believe the victim consented? That is subjective in part, i.e. did the defendant actually believe the victim consented and objective in part, i.e. does the jury think that belief was reasonable? If both are the case, the defendant is entitled to be acquitted.


In the Evans case, you have two defendants, playing different roles, thinking and saying different things about what happened, and with different factors the jury will have taken into account when deciding if their belief was reasonable. The jury would be asked to decide for each defendant separately what their conclusion is for each of those elements above, so that may help people understand how they reached a different decision for the two men.


I am late on this but have only just read up on the case and looking at the video footage she doesn't seem too drunk, certainly not at the point of having memory loss. Although she forgets her handbag and leaves it outside the takeaway but people do that sort of thing all the time even when not under the influence of alcohol. Anyway from leaving the taxi and entering the hotel she remembers she had a handbag and we see McDonald put down the pizza and chase after the taxi thinking she had left it in there. So that goes some way to show she probably wasn't so inebriated that she couldn't remember or make decisions.
Some interesting bits from the link above:
The expert called by the defence calculated that the complainant's likely blood-alcohol level 
at about 4am would have approximated to something like 2½ times the legal driving limit. He 
gave evidence that she would have suffered from slurred speech and unsteadiness of gait, but he 
would not have expected any memory loss. It was an essential part of his expert evidence that 
there were significant doubts about the claim made by the complainant that she had suffered a 
memory loss. In effect, it was suggested that her assertion was false.
Also there was a consultant pharmacologist, a professor of biomedical science who said this:  
"From the evidence of [the complainant] she appears to have 
suffered anterior-grade amnesia as a result of the high dose of 
alcohol which she consumed, and in particular that she consumed 
a substantial dose of alcohol during the last hour or so prior to 
leaving the nightclub. It appears from the evidence that her 
short-term memory was functioning at the time around the 
incident, but that the long-term record of that memory has been 
ablated by the high concentration of alcohol. There is, therefore, 
no memory record of those events and attempts to jog the 
memory may lead to confabulation. The fact that she has no 
memory of events does not mean that she was not able to 
participate in a meaningful way in events at that time, and I am 
quite clear that this includes the ability to make informed 
decisions in relation to consent. Acute alcohol intoxication may 
lead to substantial disinhibition and that may in itself lead to 
unwise judgments being made. But the fact that she does no 
longer remember having made a decision is a failure of the 
memory process and not of the decision-making process. 
Evidence of memory loss as a result of anterior-grade amnesia 
does not in itself prove that she lacked the capacity to consent." 
So it seems she wasn't too drunk to be in such a state that she couldn't make decisions. She had the capacity to make decisions but was in a state where she might not be able to remember all her decisions in the morning. Also she was in a state where the decisions she made may have been unwise but drunken consent is still consent.
But we already knew she was in a state to give consent as McDonald was aquitted but his case is being treat separately but the judge 'was satisfied that the complainant lacked the capacity to consent to sexual activity' in Ched's case? And they find nothing inconsistent with the verdicts?
Although they say McDonald may have reasonably believed consent was given because of them both meeting up and going back to the hotel together. I'm struggling to find Ched guilty, it seems he's just unlucky that because he just turned up at the hotel with her already there, to the jury the likelihood that Ched could have reasonably believed consent was given is less so. But both Ched and McDonald maintain consent was given to everything. The fact that he performed oral sex on her first aswell and apparently at her request? You probably wouldn't do that if she wasn't in a state to enjoy it and therefore consent to it.
They shouldn't have left the girl to wake up on her own in a hotel room she didn't book into but they weren't to know she wasn't going to remember the events that took place.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one of the problems Evans has had is that, to me anyway, he doesn't come across at all articulate. I can just imagine him making a right pig's ear of it on the stand, even if he wasn't guilty. 


McDonald has actually said something similar. He couldn't believe he was found guilty but said he didn't come across very well in the trial because he was so nervous. http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/clayton-mcdonald-midland-footballer-speaks-6788373

Link to post
Share on other sites

So may I ask why was he there?

Surely there were better games to be watching on a Saturday afternoon!


He's heard about the Acca and the type of clients who frequent it on a saturday night.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could we afford to lose sponsers and supporters? 


I noticed a lot of the advertising boards were empty at the Alfreton game. Bosomworth himself seems to be the main sponsor so no problem there.


The crowd would more likely increase if Evans was playing, especially the prawn sarney brigade and just think, if like he should be, he is eventually cleared after this serious miscarriage of justice we have a £3m striker on our hands

Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed a lot of the advertising boards were empty at the Alfreton game. Bosomworth himself seems to be the main sponsor so no problem there.

The crowd would more likely increase if Evans was playing, especially the prawn sarney brigade and just think, if like he should be, he is eventually cleared after this serious miscarriage of justice we have a £3m striker on our hands

Absolutely deluded. Have you not looked at our shirts? All of those sponsors can pull out. I also beliece that with the franchising agreement, BMW have a veto on his sponsorship deals so have every right to force him to cancel them.

And why in the world would crowds increase?! You'd get a load of press for a couple of games and after that they'd get bored of the story. Only a small number would refuse to attend IMO. But, with a fan base as small as ours anything this divisive would be hugely damaging.

There's also the fact you can guarantee that his agent will put a clause in saying he could walk away if he's cleared.

Link to post
Share on other sites


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

  • Create New...