Ambitious Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I'd have him back if we were in United's position. He was a good player. Don't you think he's suffered enough because some girl was 'too drunk to consent' - I wonder what would have happend if the roles were reversed. Do you see her going to prison in similar circumstances? He'd have been laughed out the police station. If anything, he was targeted because he was a footballer. That's my input on it, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 So he's suffered because she didn't give consent? Erm..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEL Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Jesus wept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyinLiverpool Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 So he's suffered because she didn't give consent? Erm..... Suffered because he was a 3rd division footballer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kevin Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I don't know the full details of this case so I will not comment on the verdict.But in relation to returning to his former job I will say this. I have always been in a job which ,if I acquired a criminal I would not work in my industry again never mind my current job. This to a large extent has kept me on the straight and narrow [i have been lucky ,after all I was as per other posts a popsider in the 60's and 70's] .But there is no point whinging if having committed an offence complaining afterwards ,you should stand by your actions. In his case he works in an industry that does not have the same standards and morals [at least it appears so at his club] but of course this varies from club to club . If he was a Derby player I would not want him back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 So he's suffered because she didn't give consent? Erm..... Ladyram, I can only apply the test... how would I feel if it was my daughter who had been raped. And how would it feel if my son was in the position that Ched Evans has found himself in. I would support either or both and try and see things from each persons perspective. Maybe some people on this forum are right I only see it from the blokes perspective. The situation has the capacity to destory lives on boths sides... how many people are going to get criminal records as a result of this now? Apart from Evans theres the tw@s who gave this lady verbal abuse, and now those abusing Judy and her daughter... Richard says prosecution awaits. The legal system just isnt working or helping either party. The inconsistency of the verdict of one being guilty and the other not guilty tarnish both parties reputations, Evans and the complainant, and give both considerable grievances .Both could have appealed, but if no-one knows how the jury could have reached such an illogical outcome, neither side would know what they are appealing against.If there's a 3 stage test (A) , (B) and ©, why cant jury be asked how do you find on (A) Did they have sex? (yes or no) (B) Did she fail to give consent (Yes or No) © Did he have no good reason to believe she was consenting (yes or No)? If answer to all 3 is yes, only one verdict: Guilty, if not then Not. That would help in a case like this , on both sides I think. That I think would help both sides Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trekkie_ram Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 I don't understand the 'clearing his name / fast track trial' happening now. Surely if he succeeds then his jail sentence should never have happened? So why wouldn't he do that at the start of his sentence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mafiabob Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 On a side note.... Does anyone like Mike Tyson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 I don't understand the 'clearing his name / fast track trial' happening now. Surely if he succeeds then his jail sentence should never have happened? So why wouldn't he do that at the start of his sentence? Many reasons trekkie , the wheels of justice grind very slowly. Hes appealed already but the scope for appeal is always limited once you get a verdict. There is new evidence , allegedly, plus he has a new legal team. Mafibob i dont like Mike Tyson, didnt he "act" in The Hangover where the guys coudlnt remember what happened the night before? heres my football analogy. Two teams play away from home against the same team in quick succession. Usually these games end in 1-1 draws ( one persons word against anothers). Unfortunately for the home team the rules of this tournament are, in the event of a draw, away goals count double so the away team usually wins. Even worse the home team has forgotten where the goals are so the result of the first game is 1-0 to the away team. Even more unusually , the result of the second game is 2-0 ( the home team still had forgotten where the goals were but also the second away team had been watching the first game and so had some help from the other away team). the home team complained to FIFA, providing evidence that their own players had been drugged at an event prior to either of the two games, which had adversely affected their performance. Although there was no evidence that either of the away teams had been involved in the drugging,the home team asked that the results of both games be overturned and the matches awarded to them. FIFA, who of course we must trust entirely, awarded the second match to the home team , but declined to overturn the first result , even though both games took place after the alleged drugging. They declined to give any reasons for their verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Many reasons trekkie , the wheels of justice grind very slowly. Hes appealed already but the scoop for appeal is always limited once you get a verdict. There is new evidence , allegedly, plus he has a new legal team. Mafibob i dont like Mike Tyson, didnt he "act" in The Hangover where the guys coudlnt remember what happened the night before? heres my football analogy. Two teams play away from home against the same team in quick succession. Usually these games end in 1-1 draws ( one persons word against anothers). Unfortunately for the home team the rules of this tournament are, in the event of a draw, away goals count double so the away team usually wins. Even worse the home team has forgotten where the goals are so the result of the first game is 1-0 to the away team. Even more unusually , the result of the second game is 2-0 ( the home team still had forgotten where the goals were but also the second away team had been watching the first game and so had some help from the other away team). the home team complained to FIFA, providing evidence that their own players had been drugged at an event prior to either of the two games, which had adversely affected their performance. Although there was no evidence that either of the away teams had been involved in the drugging,the home team asked that the results of both games be overturned and the matches awarded to them. FIFA, who of course we must trust entirely, awarded the second match to the home team , but declined to overturn the first result , even though both games took place after the alleged drugging. They declined to give any reasons for their verdict. Typical Blatter. Or did I miss the point?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Typical Blatter. Or did I miss the point?! Yes maybe, and I forgot so say I dont mean to trivialise rape in making the football analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRainy Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Hes appealed already. No he hasn't, his appeal was refused. He asked for a review, which anyone can do. Charlie Webster to resign as patron if he returns to the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 No he hasn't, his appeal was refused. He asked for a review, which anyone can do. Charlie Webster to resign as patron if he returns to the club. How can his appeal have been refused if he didnt make one? The appeal was unsuccessful because the Court of Appeal thought it was possible to have the two inconsistent judgements. Not sure it is possible for one to be guilty and not the other ,but even so a possible but unlikely result still feels wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted October 25, 2014 Author Share Posted October 25, 2014 How can his appeal have been refused if he didnt make one? The appeal was unsuccessful because the Court of Appeal thought it was possible to have the two inconsistent judgements. Not sure it is possible for one to be guilty and not the other ,but even so a possible but unlikely result still feels wrong. Erm think about it. Girl goes back to hotel with a bloke and consents. His mate cons his way into the hotel, cons a key card to the room. Did she go to the hotel with him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Erm think about it. Girl goes back to hotel with a bloke and consents. His mate cons his way into the hotel, cons a key card to the room. Did she go to the hotel with him? davenport who says she didnt say yes to sex or genuinely request it? 2 blokes say she did. She cant remember what she said. The judge directed jury or decide either or .... either the jury is sure she was too drunk to consent (in which case no consent was given) or the defendants are not guilty. it really is very simple. and considering drunken consent is still consent unless she really was completely out of it, the fact that a conviction was made is just plain ridiculous. tricking into the hotel etc.... also not true he had booked and paid for the room himself. Sure he fancied a threesome and casual sex. He had good reason to expect casual sex would be available , since the lady was having sex with his mate who she had just met. Its not unusual for "Mr and Mrs Smith" to tell lies to the hotel receptionist when they book in for some nookie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRainy Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 How can his appeal have been refused if he didnt make one? The appeal was unsuccessful. The judge refused to allow him to make an appeal, so no appeal was made. It is therefore incorrect to say his appeal was unsuccessful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRainy Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 He had good reason to expect casual sex would be available , since the lady was having sex with his mate who she had just met. Absolute rubbish. Consenting to have sex with one person does not mean you have consented to have sex with two people. Evans had no reason to expect anything of the sort, and that is why he was rightly convicted. Your argument boils down to: she was drunk, she was a slag, therefore she was asking for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Absolute rubbish. Consenting to have sex with one person does not mean you have consented to have sex with two people. Evans had no reason to expect anything of the sort, and that is why he was rightly convicted. Your argument boils down to: she was drunk, she was a slag, therefore she was asking for it. Lambchop: do you always have arguments with yourself? Say something you disagree with and then disagree with yourself? You seem to do this a lot. This latest discussion was why he entered the hotel room. Same reason as the other two , he wanted casual sex. It isnt like me tricking my way into Angelina Jolies hotel suite, the guy fancied his prospects and had good reason to. His mate would let him , and the lady was not averse to casual sex.OF COURSE he has to ask her first, he has no right to assume, and nobody , certainly not me, has ever said that he should be safe to assume. But once they are all in the room, what evidence is there that no consent was given?. The jury has to be sure that no consent was given , but there is no proof, in fact no evidence at all. 2 men said she did consent , she says she cant remember. Guy listening at the door heard them having sex, but was more concerned about the hotels room occupancy rules being broken (3 in one room), and he certainly did not suspect a rape. So the only issue is was she too drunk to consent , as that is the only way that "no consent" can be proved. And the jury need to be sure about that . How can the jury be sure, on the limited evidence available to them, that she was too drunk to consent? No alcohol was found in her body afterwards, she'd peed it all out. She said she was tipsy but not out of control . And the jury acquits the other guy? If it was so obvious she was too drunk, why wasnt it obvious to Macdonald? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted October 26, 2014 Author Share Posted October 26, 2014 Pete he didnt enter at thecsane time as the other two. He lied to reception to get a key because he hadnt been invited to the room Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Pete he didnt enter at thecsane time as the other two. He lied to reception to get a key because he hadnt been invited to the room Agreed on the first point. But he arrived only 15 mins later. From start to finish the first 2 going in to Evans making his famous exit on the fire escape took just over half an hour. There is no relevance to him lying to receptionist so far as i can see; why is this evidence of a criminal act? What do you expect him to say to the receptionist, "I know the room is only for 2 people , but I fancy a threesome with my mate and his bird , will you let me in?" The only question is did he trick the lady into having sex with him against her wishes? If so how? Wel maybe he piled in , without asking, maybe she had passed out and was unconscious when he was shagging her . Maybe it was rape. But wheres the evidence? The only evidence is from the two blokes who say she said yes to sex , and that she made some very explicit requests of her own. Maybe they are lying, but theres no-one who has given evidence to suggest that they were lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.