|
Post by champagneprince on Jan 6, 2015 1:26:45 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Jan 6, 2015 13:41:13 GMT 1
Also been reported that the Attorney General is investigating the Ched Evans website (funded by his girlfriends millionaire father) for Contempt of Court for naming the woman at the centre of the case and posting details about her
All getting rather nasty with no obvious end in site
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2015 13:55:16 GMT 1
naming the woman at the centre of the case and posting details about her Vile! Notice Ched has not distanced himself from this petty and damaging act.
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Jan 6, 2015 14:15:10 GMT 1
Well that wont help his case, if he had one, now more likely to get locked up which might be his best chance of getting a game of football
|
|
|
Post by Stowmarket Shrew on Jan 6, 2015 19:42:40 GMT 1
theconversation.com/ched-evans-the-legality-and-ethics-of-hiring-a-convicted-rapist-35868Interesting debate and legal opinion here. For me has nothing to do with rape (which is plainly abhorent) or much to do with Evans (who equally plainly is a complete tool) but everything to do with respect for the judicial system. I for one support the principle that once out he should be allowed to work. If the judicial system felt that he had showed insufficient remorse or that he was insufficiently rehabilatated, then it could continue to deny him his freedom. Good luck to the lad I say - I hope he finds a club and silences the populist bigots who for some reason consider that he should be further punished over and above the law, simply because he is a footballer rather than a plumber or a train driver. I simply don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by SouthStandShrew on Jan 6, 2015 20:07:32 GMT 1
Can anyone sum up why this has had more coverage than the Lee Hughes 'affair'?
|
|
|
Post by shrewder on Jan 6, 2015 20:15:10 GMT 1
Can anyone sum up why this has had more coverage than the Lee Hughes 'affair'? Maybe because Hughes admitted his guilt for a start.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2015 20:16:46 GMT 1
That's what Oldham will be banking on. It's not Evans that is being contested per se, it is the law itself and the way it was applied. How so? Evans is either innocent or guilty under the law. He's not in any position to challenge the law itself. Until and unless he is successful in appealing he remains a man convicted of rape by a jury that heard all the evidence and legal arguments, unlike anyone on here. Oldham aren't acting on principle, they just want a decent striker. I suspect they'll pay a heavy price if they sign this one - and justifiably so. Well the way I view it is upon the verdict given in the first instance, The burden of proof for criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt. And if the girl cannot say that she did not give consent or not being unable to remember and 2 witnesses say she did, then that to me would induce enough doubt to have no reasonable chance of being able to give a conviction.
|
|
|
Post by callum on Jan 6, 2015 20:17:12 GMT 1
Can anyone sum up why this has had more coverage than the Lee Hughes 'affair'? Or Luke Mccormick? This individual showed absolutely no remorse after killing 2 children.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Jan 6, 2015 20:20:16 GMT 1
Can anyone sum up why this has had more coverage than the Lee Hughes 'affair'? Think social media has a big part to play. So easy for people to give an opinion or start a petition now, and the media report on "opinion" now as much as facts. That's been a big change even in the 5 years or so since Hughes was released With Hughes and also Luke McCormack there was also much more clarity that they had committed the crime they served time for. While neither came out of that with any credit neither claimed they had been harshly dealt with and a line had been drawn under the incident With the Evans case, despite going through the full court process, its clear the verdict splits opinion. Not least by Evans himself, so it's almost two debates going on. Was what he did rape; and should someone convicted of that crime be able to resume their career as a footballer. Which then provides lots of scope for people to express their opinions
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Jan 6, 2015 20:29:58 GMT 1
How so? Evans is either innocent or guilty under the law. He's not in any position to challenge the law itself. Until and unless he is successful in appealing he remains a man convicted of rape by a jury that heard all the evidence and legal arguments, unlike anyone on here. Oldham aren't acting on principle, they just want a decent striker. I suspect they'll pay a heavy price if they sign this one - and justifiably so. Well the way I view it is upon the verdict given in the first instance, The burden of proof for criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt. And if the girl cannot say that she did not give consent or not being unable to remember and 2 witnesses say she did, then that to me would induce enough doubt to have no reasonable chance of being able to give a conviction. But as the judge said in his summing up that's not what the judge asked the jury to consider. He asked to jury to consider if Evans was in a position to know the woman was rationally and reasonably consenting to sex with him. That I think is at the heart of the reason this is becoming such an important case as its establishing the principle that even if someone consents to sex, it can still be classed as rape if they are judged not to be in a reasonable mental or physical state to have given it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2015 20:49:52 GMT 1
so maybe that is the problem. and if she was under the influence of drink was he? very messy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2015 21:02:27 GMT 1
Heard a local MP make a point earlier today - what the reaction be if Stuart Hall etc trying to get back onto radio/TV? They wouldn't be allowed too.
Evans was convicted of rape & is on the sex offenders register, I personally find rapists to be lower than pondscum, and rather than put out "I want to move on" type of press release, which would not impact on any appeal, he has instead become part of a vile social media campaign against the young girl involved which has involved her being named and having to move due to threats. Hardly the act of someone who wants to become part of football again.
Nothing against him working again, just not in football please. Sure the multi-millionaire father of his girlfriend (the same guy who is running his "Ched Evans is innocent" website) can find him some work out of the spotlight?
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Jan 6, 2015 21:06:21 GMT 1
so maybe that is the problem. and if she was under the influence of drink was he? very messy. In the original case the defence didnt make any claims that Evans was drunk and not able to make a rational judgement, but guess that might be an argument they make at any appeal. Having read a couple of legal bloggers views on this, the success of any appeal would seem to rest, as a couple of others have said, on whether the judge was correct to direct the jury to make their decision in that way. The initial leave to appeal said that direction was correct, so I guess Evans legal team have to use other case law to show the judges direction was wrong
|
|
|
Post by mightyshrew on Jan 6, 2015 22:33:14 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jan 7, 2015 1:51:47 GMT 1
Actually says "no response" rather than "no comment" - would have preferred no comment! Overall I'm just glad we apparently have nothing to say on the matter and very happy if he's never mentioned at the Meadow.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Jan 7, 2015 8:41:02 GMT 1
The official Ched Evans website throws up some interesting points that I hadn't seen in the public domain previously.
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Jan 7, 2015 9:02:53 GMT 1
Can anyone sum up why this has had more coverage than the Lee Hughes 'affair'? Or Luke Mccormick? This individual showed absolutely no remorse after killing 2 children. Think you will find you are wrong here. He pleaded guilty and I think I read somewhere he donates part of his wages every month to a Childrens Charity
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Jan 7, 2015 9:23:53 GMT 1
The official Ched Evans website throws up some interesting points that I hadn't seen in the public domain previously. Makes "interesting" reading when compared with the official court evidence. The section offering a reward for information that can help "clear Jed" ie asking for dirt on the victim is particularly knuckle headed. If that's the quality of his defence team you can see how he got found guilty!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2015 10:32:37 GMT 1
The official Ched Evans website throws up some interesting points that I hadn't seen in the public domain previously. Be intrested to see how many of these points were raised (and dismissed as circumstancial) in court and how many have suddenly appeared since the site went live. Anyone who has to launch a site like this to clear thier name whilst rubbishing the young victim in this case musy clearly have a lousy moral compass.......the fact the victim is mentioned by name really gets under my skin.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jan 7, 2015 10:50:12 GMT 1
theconversation.com/ched-evans-the-legality-and-ethics-of-hiring-a-convicted-rapist-35868Interesting debate and legal opinion here. For me has nothing to do with rape (which is plainly abhorent) or much to do with Evans (who equally plainly is a complete tool) but everything to do with respect for the judicial system. I for one support the principle that once out he should be allowed to work. If the judicial system felt that he had showed insufficient remorse or that he was insufficiently rehabilatated, then it could continue to deny him his freedom. Good luck to the lad I say - I hope he finds a club and silences the populist bigots who for some reason consider that he should be further punished over and above the law, simply because he is a footballer rather than a plumber or a train driver. I simply don't get it. By the same token, would you want Stuart Hall chortling away on TV in a remake of "It's A Knockout", or Rolf Harris asking "can you see what it is yet" on a future TV show? I'd be surprised if you would. I wonder how their victims might feel about that? I wonder how Evans' victim might feel about seeing him pick up his career where he left off, maybe playing for Wales in Euro 2016? Put it another way. If a solicitor was jailed for theft or a lorry driver jailed for dangerous driving, you wouldn't expect them to be able to resume their previous jobs. So they would be punished "over and above the law" as you put it simply because their crime had a connection with their job, even if it might only be a tenuous one. I think it's a similar thing with those in the public eye if they've been convicted of such a serious crime as rape. All jobs aren't the same. Of course he should be rehabilitated but just because he used to be a highly paid professional footballer doesn't make it an injustice if he can't continue to be one. It's not bigotry to believe that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2015 11:42:19 GMT 1
Lets not forget he is on parole halfway through a 5 year sentence as well, and as mentioned by TBH the whole situation is pretty sordid when you think it was filmed by friends through a window as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2015 12:17:28 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2015 12:25:43 GMT 1
theconversation.com/ched-evans-the-legality-and-ethics-of-hiring-a-convicted-rapist-35868Interesting debate and legal opinion here. For me has nothing to do with rape (which is plainly abhorent) or much to do with Evans (who equally plainly is a complete tool) but everything to do with respect for the judicial system. I for one support the principle that once out he should be allowed to work. If the judicial system felt that he had showed insufficient remorse or that he was insufficiently rehabilatated, then it could continue to deny him his freedom. Good luck to the lad I say - I hope he finds a club and silences the populist bigots who for some reason consider that he should be further punished over and above the law, simply because he is a footballer rather than a plumber or a train driver. I simply don't get it. By the same token, would you want Stuart Hall chortling away on TV in a remake of "It's A Knockout", or Rolf Harris asking "can you see what it is yet" on a future TV show? I'd be surprised if you would. I wonder how their victims might feel about that? I wonder how Evans' victim might feel about seeing him pick up his career where he left off, maybe playing for Wales in Euro 2016? Put it another way. If a solicitor was jailed for theft or a lorry driver jailed for dangerous driving, you wouldn't expect them to be able to resume their previous jobs. So they would be punished "over and above the law" as you put it simply because their crime had a connection with their job, even if it might only be a tenuous one. I think it's a similar thing with those in the public eye if they've been convicted of such a serious crime as rape. All jobs aren't the same. Of course he should be rehabilitated but just because he used to be a highly paid professional footballer doesn't make it an injustice if he can't continue to be one. It's not bigotry to believe that. Spot on!
|
|
|
Post by ssshrew on Jan 7, 2015 12:51:20 GMT 1
Good. Couldn't stand the thought of us being involved in such controversy. We have far more important things such as promotion to concentrate on. Innocent or guilty, after all this furore, hardly the right influence to have around. interesting that neither Notts County nor Port Vale who both employed Lee Hughes are interested either. Have they learnt a hard lesson by experience I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Jan 7, 2015 14:11:05 GMT 1
theconversation.com/ched-evans-the-legality-and-ethics-of-hiring-a-convicted-rapist-35868Interesting debate and legal opinion here. For me has nothing to do with rape (which is plainly abhorent) or much to do with Evans (who equally plainly is a complete tool) but everything to do with respect for the judicial system. I for one support the principle that once out he should be allowed to work. If the judicial system felt that he had showed insufficient remorse or that he was insufficiently rehabilatated, then it could continue to deny him his freedom. Good luck to the lad I say - I hope he finds a club and silences the populist bigots who for some reason consider that he should be further punished over and above the law, simply because he is a footballer rather than a plumber or a train driver. I simply don't get it. By the same token, would you want Stuart Hall chortling away on TV in a remake of "It's A Knockout", or Rolf Harris asking "can you see what it is yet" on a future TV show? I'd be surprised if you would. I wonder how their victims might feel about that? I wonder how Evans' victim might feel about seeing him pick up his career where he left off, maybe playing for Wales in Euro 2016? Put it another way. If a solicitor was jailed for theft or a lorry driver jailed for dangerous driving, you wouldn't expect them to be able to resume their previous jobs. So they would be punished "over and above the law" as you put it simply because their crime had a connection with their job, even if it might only be a tenuous one. I think it's a similar thing with those in the public eye if they've been convicted of such a serious crime as rape. All jobs aren't the same. Of course he should be rehabilitated but just because he used to be a highly paid professional footballer doesn't make it an injustice if he can't continue to be one. It's not bigotry to believe that. A Solicitor being convicted of theft is against rules of being a Solicitor so clearly couldn't work. Nothing to stop a lorry driver going back to same job after causing death by dangerous driving once he has his licence back. Didn't know having sex was part of a footballers job. Laws of our Country are based on rehabilitation with protection in some cases which is right. Interestingly if he was a referee he might be stopped from returning as seen in a position of trust. See some people are calling for footballers with sex offence convictions to be banned from playing. This would mean the Away Supporters Football Team having to carry out DBS checks before people could play. Do people really want that
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Jan 7, 2015 14:12:52 GMT 1
Good reply from the Club. Says we aren't interested but doesn't enter the debate, impressed with the reply
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jan 7, 2015 15:00:15 GMT 1
By the same token, would you want Stuart Hall chortling away on TV in a remake of "It's A Knockout", or Rolf Harris asking "can you see what it is yet" on a future TV show? I'd be surprised if you would. I wonder how their victims might feel about that? I wonder how Evans' victim might feel about seeing him pick up his career where he left off, maybe playing for Wales in Euro 2016? Put it another way. If a solicitor was jailed for theft or a lorry driver jailed for dangerous driving, you wouldn't expect them to be able to resume their previous jobs. So they would be punished "over and above the law" as you put it simply because their crime had a connection with their job, even if it might only be a tenuous one. I think it's a similar thing with those in the public eye if they've been convicted of such a serious crime as rape. All jobs aren't the same. Of course he should be rehabilitated but just because he used to be a highly paid professional footballer doesn't make it an injustice if he can't continue to be one. It's not bigotry to believe that. A Solicitor being convicted of theft is against rules of being a Solicitor so clearly couldn't work. Nothing to stop a lorry driver going back to same job after causing death by dangerous driving once he has his licence back. Didn't know having sex was part of a footballers job. Laws of our Country are based on rehabilitation with protection in some cases which is right. Interestingly if he was a referee he might be stopped from returning as seen in a position of trust. See some people are calling for footballers with sex offence convictions to be banned from playing. This would mean the Away Supporters Football Team having to carry out DBS checks before people could play. Do people really want that I did say those examples wouldn't be expected to resume their previous jobs, not that the rules were absolute. Did I say sex was part of a footballer's job? "Similar" doesn't mean "the same". I don't think you can (or should) have a fixed set of rules for every ex-offender's case, whether its rapist footballers or paedophile entertainers. All I'm saying is I see no more injustice in Evans being unable to resume his previous career than I would in the cases of Stuart Hall or Rolf Harris.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2015 15:19:09 GMT 1
It's now looking highly likely that Ched Evans will be resuming his football league career with Oldham Athletic. Expect official confirmation from the club tomorrow. Oldham Athletic used to pride itself on being a family centred club, NOT ANYMORE. I know of one lifelong supporter who will no longer follow them home and away as a result, sad sad day.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Jan 7, 2015 15:57:06 GMT 1
So the "footballer" Ched Evans is accused of rape (the police actually wrote that) and people on this thread refer to his girlfriend's "millionaire father" running the website / giving him work.
In both cases the use of that description appears to be a deliberate slant on the case. People wouldn't be so angry if a milkman was protesting his innocence and his nurse girlfriend's father who was a falklands veteran was trying to clear his name.
|
|