Ched Evans

General chat about anything else goes here.
PhilGull
Top Scorer
Top Scorer
Posts: 1941
Joined: 06 Sep 2010, 08:36

Post by PhilGull »

Gulliball wrote:It was perhaps inevitable, but I think the next few days are going to be quite unpleasant. The case has been horrible enough for long enough now to not begin to pick apart the victim now that there has been a 'not guilty' verdict.

If you want someone to blame then Ched Evans is still target number one for me. It was Ched Evans who booked the hotel room in advance, had his mate text him when he had "got a girl", lied to get into the hotel room, had his brother and friend outside filming the exact room at exact time, and had his exit pre-planned out the fire escape and away.

That's before you look at his police interview, in which he admitted that he and Clayton McDonald had had threesomes with women before - "It's not a normal thing but in the situation we're in, stuff like that does happen because girls like it. They have got two footballers there."

And his belief that he "could have had any girl" they wanted in the bar in Rhyl. "Footballers are rich, they have got money and that's what girls like".

It's his sense of entitlement that's got him into trouble. He pre-planned this and set it up. He didn't talk to the woman he had sex with before, during or afterwards. His friend said "can my mate join in?" and that's enough to get 'consent' for all of the above.

This isn't two drunk people have sex and the man is accused of rape, this isn't just something that could have happened to anyone in the street, this isn't a precedent that's going to help any man in the future, so I'm really struggling to see why there is glee at this verdict. I really hope it's just ignorance of the case, or just more more generally ignorance, that not guilty doesn't mean that she lied, made this up or should now be jailed (as our own Jamie Reid just published on twitter).

The legal definition of rape is something for politicians, judges, lawyers etc to argue over, but that doesn't excuse any of the behaviours involved. You wouldn't teach your son to pick up women in this manner, and you'd probably want to kill anyone who did that to your daughter.

If you want to take anything positive away from this, it should hopefully be that impressionable young people might think more about what qualifies as consent. Although based on the immediate twitter response it looks like it will actually be people taking sides without thinking at all.
:goodpost:
Well said Gulliball. I can't be bothered to reply to Gullscorer's Trump-esque post calling the girl a "slut".
Gary Johnson's Yellow Army! Yellow Army! Yellow Army!

Your trust needs YOU!
TUST number 084
Glostergull
Country Captain
Country Captain
Posts: 3553
Joined: 18 Sep 2010, 17:29
Favourite player: ROBIN STUBBS
Location: Gloucester

Post by Glostergull »

Actualy your wrong saying she accused him of rape. in fact all she said was she couldn't remember what had happened. The CPS assumed rape. As the case notes prove.
And i Qoute from Legal notes. X has never asserted that she was raped. She has always simply maintained that she had no memory of what happened. It was the prosecution case – the case theory of the Crown Prosecution Service – that she was raped. The defence case was based not on the “usual” he said/ she said dispute over consent, but rather he said/ she can’t remember. There is absolutely no safe basis for suggesting she has lied, or, to quell the more hysterical calls, that she should be prosecuted on the basis of Evans’ acquittal.
Always Look on the bright side of life

Check out my poems topic... http://www.torquayfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4843
Gullscorer
Legend
Legend
Posts: 6575
Joined: 22 Jul 2011, 00:30
Contact:

Post by Gullscorer »

I agree with most of what other posters have said, though I know of nobody who has looked upon the verdict with glee; quite the opposite. And whatever the male equivalent of a slut is, Ched Evans was it. He and all the parties involved behaved in a manner which rightly disgusts all normal decent people. However, he was not being tried for being a stupid badly-behaved character with low morals. He was being tried for rape.

In rape trials, defence lawyers are banned from cross-examining an alleged victim about their sexual behaviour or history to ‘protect them from humiliating treatment’. Leaving aside the fact that the inability to cross-examine an accuser can prevent a fair trial, there can be exceptional reasons to ditch that rule in the interests of a fair trial.

The Court of Appeal said the Evans case was one of those very rare exceptions. It said that two other men who had sex with the woman had described their encounters with her in highly specific terms that were virtually indistinguishable from Mr Evans's own account of what had happened. One of the encounters occurred days before the alleged rape - and the other in the days that followed. On each occasion the woman had been drinking heavily and the sex occurred in a very specific way - including the words she used to encourage her partner. Each time she woke up saying she had no memory of what had happened.

Lady Justice Hallett, one of the country's top judges, said that these events were so similar to what Mr Evans had described that a jury had to hear about them before deciding whether the woman had been incapable of giving her consent. It was this specific question of consent that Mr Evans' trial was centred around. He insisted the woman had been in a state to consent. She said she could not even remember meeting him that night. It was this point on which the trial hinged.

The jury, including seven women, heard all the evidence in detail for two weeks and then found him not guilty in less than three hours, including a break for lunch. The evidence was undeniable, and the correct verdict was reached.

All this isn’t good enough for the social justice lynch mob fanatics. To them, Evans is still a guilty rapist, and the verdict doesn’t mean he is innocent. They conveniently forget that the reverse could also be true: that the guilty verdict didn’t necessarily mean he was guilty. Worse than that, when he was wrongly found guilty in the first trial, after enduring a prison sentence he should not have served, they wanted to impose punishment beyond that required by the law.

Those people who felt strongly that he should not, for example, be employed again as a footballer (remember Oldham) are confusing the question of practice with the appropriate provisions of a criminal sanction. The court does not impose unemployment as a punishment. Part of a law-based society is that you respect the decision of the law rather than fall back on informal justice imposed and handed out by, shall we say, members of the community who feel strongly about certain matters.

But even worse than that, after the trial Supt Jo Williams of North Wales Police said: “We are aware that once again the victim has been named on social media. We would remind people that it is a criminal offence under Section 5 of the Sexual Offences Amendments Act to do so, and that the victim has the right to life long anonymity. An investigation is ongoing into the naming."

But the court has determined that a sexual offence did not take place. So why is Supt Williams referring to a 'victim'? If no offence took place, how can there be a victim? Is Supt Willliams' unfortunate choice of words indicative of the (literal) prejudice of the police, who it seems pushed the woman to make accusations she did not want to make?

It’s true that a false rape accusation need not be malicious: a woman can be persuaded to genuinely believe she was raped even when nothing of the sort happened at all. But this young woman did not accuse Evans of rape. Why? Perhaps because she genuinely could not remember, just as she claimed to remember nothing of her other sexual encounters? Or because she knew he never raped her?

It was the police and the CPS, following a feminist-driven politically correct agenda to increase the number of rape convictions, who charged him, and she went along with it. That is tantamount to falsely accusing him herself, as a result of which, a man has spent two years in prison and lost a lucrative career. One hopes she will reflect on this, but as a member of generation snowflake all she is doing is whining at the behaviour of the Internet users who have found her out. I strongly disapprove of such behaviour (and it came from the social justice fanatics - again, remember Oldham - as well as from Ched Evans supporters), but it must be pointed out that the law of which Supt. Williams speaks is there to protect genuine victims, not false accusers.

For those who want further reading and background information, I recommend the following:

This says it better than I can: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... y-sin.html
Oldham: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/30727729
On the CPS: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... RRINS.html
And this: http://herbertpurdy.com/?p=2295
On CPS statistics: http://mra-uk.co.uk/?p=551
The CPS again... and again... https://j4mb.wordpress.com/?s=CPS
The Mark Pearson case: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... claim.html
On Ched Evans (from November 2014): http://mra-uk.co.uk/?p=183
On the different penalties for male and female offenders: http://mra-uk.co.uk/?p=667
Safety Wardens: https://j4mb.wordpress.com/2016/10/20/s ... ens-contd/
Wrongly accused: http://www.cotwa.info/
Not unusual: https://j4mb.wordpress.com/2016/10/20/a ... ce-system/
Gullscorer
Legend
Legend
Posts: 6575
Joined: 22 Jul 2011, 00:30
Contact:

Post by Gullscorer »

Ched Evans to return to Sheffield United: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39697804
Excellent news, and I hear he's planning to sue Gloria Hunniford and Loose Women, though I'm still waiting for him to sue the police and the young woman involved. False accusations of rape and abuse, and the witch hunt of innocent men in today's feminist-influenced PC climate, do not stop.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 188 guests