Any thoughts on Ched Evans?

[Johnny Rev 7.0]

I think you're a week behind the news here.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/30662865

[paint it black]

Yeah, perhaps making rape jokes in this context isn't exactly the smartest thing to do.

Technically, the joke is on Ched Evans and his apparent insistence that drink is the sole cause of all his problems and that stuff just happens. I do apologise if offence has been caused but I dont think we should start censoring stuff like that, especially in light of recent events.

uh uh, someone's in for a roasting

[markfiend]

I dont think we should start censoring stuff like that, especially in light of recent events.

Yeah fair enough

[markfiend]

roasting

very good

[The Mentalist]

I think you're a week behind the news here.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/30662865

OK. That just about sums me up. I don't know anything about football either so I'ii go and see if there's a thread about Underneath What or scrabble or something

[Dan]

I wonder if the same idiots who graffiti'd abuse on a paediatrician's house are now giving Shed Seven abuse on twitter?

[EvilBastard]

I wonder if the same idiots who graffiti'd abuse on a paediatrician's house are now giving Shed Seven abuse on twitter?

Although apparently Al Nino is quite pleased that he's not getting blamed this time around.

[Johnny Rev 7.0]

We were wrong.

Ched Evans: Footballer found not guilty of hotel rape

He always believed in his innocence and has fought for six years to clear his name. We had him hung, drawn, and quartered from day one.

I think that says something about him; but more importantly about us.

The Internet Judge and Jury.

I wish him all the best at re-establishing his career.

[eastmidswhizzkid]

much as there are things about the british justice system that are in need of review, whilst we have "innocent untl proven guilty" and the right to be tried by our peers (jury system) it remanins possibly the fairest in the world. therefore as he has been found not guilty i have to go with johnny and wish him as successful resumption of his career as the circumstances allow.

it raises the right to anonymity for the accused question: if we are innocent until proven guilty do we not deserve the same rights as the innocent until such time as we are proven otherwise? i think we do. i cant imagine many things more horrific than to be falsely accused of a sex crime. too many believe that there is "no smoke withoutt fire" and a false accusation can destroy somones life as effectively as being found guilty.

[emilystrange]

it was the police that started the rape charge process, not the girl, remember.

ched evans is a cheating little toerag, if nothing else. his girlfriend offered rewards on FB of £50,000 for men to stand as witnesses against this girl in the second trial.

i don't wish him well, nor his fiancee, nor anyone connected with him who victimised the girl, illegally published her name and address, encouraged trolling, intimidated her, and made her life hell.
there is no evidence that she lied. no evidence except for men saying she behaved in the same way in other sexual encounters. that should not have even been brought into the trial - other sexual history should not be. apparently this evidence was so exceptional that it could be considered - other lawyers don't think so.

(and, how lovely... one of the men filming this is now a teacher. he's a great role model for boys.)

[lazarus corporation]

I have to say that while he has not been found guilty (and so is innocent in the eyes of the law) I don't wish him well either.

I completely accept that sufficient proof was not provided to the court in the opinion of that particular jury, under the direction of that particular judge, based on the requirements of current laws, to find him guilty of rape.

That doesn't mean I (a) believe our courts are infallible and (b) can't personally hold a different opinion, though.

And if I could afford to offer £50K to my mates to swear in court that I'm right about this, I'm fairly certain I could find lots of people to back me up on this opinion.

[markfiend]

Although he has been found not guilty, I still think he's a dirty fucking rapist.

[emilystrange]

yup.

[EvilBastard]

We were wrong.

Ched Evans: Footballer found not guilty of hotel rape

He always believed in his innocence and has fought for six years to clear his name. We had him hung, drawn, and quartered from day one.

I think that says something about him; but more importantly about us.

The Internet Judge and Jury.

I wish him all the best at re-establishing his career.

We were "wrong" only insofar as we were prepared to go along with the result of the original trial, which found him guilty. Although we were wrong, perhaps, not to believe his protestations of innocence.

That being said,

The prosecution argued that the complainant did not have the capacity to consent, but the jury found they could not be sure, beyond reasonable doubt, that the complainant did not consent, or that Evans thought she was not consenting.

Perhaps Mr. Evans will in future be much more certain of what he's doing - it sounds rather as if the reasonable doubt worked in his favour on this occasion, and he may not be so lucky next time.

I hope that this verdict doesn't dissuade victims of rape from coming forward in the future - that would be a terrible outcome. However, I am pleased that justice has been seen to be done - if, as it seems, the original verdict was unsafe, then Mr. Evans had the opportunity to appeal based on fresh evidence, and right that all of us enjoy, and which is sacrosanct within the British judicial system.

Of course, since we were prepared to accept the original guilty verdict at face value, we should also ask ourselves - how would we have felt in the 70s after the convictions of the Guildford and Birmingham pub bombers? Would we have said, "Verdict is verdict, the mick bastards are guilty as sin, let's bring back hanging for them"?

[emilystrange]

there was video evidence - was this available at the first trial?

[EvilBastard]

there was video evidence - was this available at the first trial?

Not sure - all I can glean from news sources is that the original conviction was unsound, or the investigation had been compromised.

Although it is troubling that appeal and acquittal seems to have hinged partly on evidence provided by the compainant, who was quizzed in detail and at length about whom she had had sex with, the positions she favoured and the language she used during it. The precedent that this sets, that a complainant's previous sexual behaviour can be used by the defense to discredit her, is deeply troubling.

[emilystrange]

it CAN'T be used in court, UNLESS the evidence is deemed to be of absolutely vital importance.
i just can't see it in this case, and there's already been one lawyer saying exactly that, and that this has put us back 30 years in these cases.
the fact that she has sex in a certain way when drunk means pig s**t. what matters is whether she gave consent or not, and her other sexual encounters should have no bearing on this.
it is very troubling, and a return to the old days.

[Being645]

it was the police that started the rape charge process, not the girl, remember.

ched evans is a cheating little toerag, if nothing else. his girlfriend offered rewards on FB of £50,000 for men to stand as witnesses against this girl in the second trial.

i don't wish him well, nor his fiancee, nor anyone connected with him who victimised the girl, illegally published her name and address, encouraged trolling, intimidated her, and made her life hell.
there is no evidence that she lied. no evidence except for men saying she behaved in the same way in other sexual encounters. that should not have even been brought into the trial - other sexual history should not be. apparently this evidence was so exceptional that it could be considered - other lawyers don't think so.

(and, how lovely... one of the men filming this is now a teacher. he's a great role model for boys.)

Fully seconded. Not for a second would I believe any of those "witnesses" after money was offered in public. Not to mention any former partners of any girl ...
But ok, they judged to Evans' advantage ... and after all he did serve a time in prison. So he might be entitled to quite some compensation ...
making 50,000 a good investment ... and filming sexual intercourse whenever it happens almost a safety precaution ...

[markfiend]

Another rapist gets away with it. Film at eleven.

Evans doesn't even deny that he fúcked the woman he was convicted of raping. As far as I can tell, his "defence" rests solely on a wilful misunderstanding of the concept of consent.

and

as far as I can tell his claimed grounds for appeal seems to be "she didn't explicitly say no therefore she consented", which AFAICT is exactly the same defence he relied on in the trial in which he was found guilty. He has nothing.

I still think these points are true.

There is no way on earth that the victim's sexual history should have been allowable in evidence. It's equivalent to saying that because I once gave a homeless man a fiver, anybody should be allowed to take my money.

The £50K reward for the men who were willing to further blacken the victim's name—I think that his girlfriend should face charges for bribery of potential witnesses. I don't know why she's not been done for attempting to pervert the course of justice.

The whole sordid story tells us that once again you can get away with anything if you have enough money.

[emilystrange]

*likes*
there is a gofund appeal to help the girl in the case. Let's not forget that she has had myriad threats of violence and rape made, plus actual death threats. her legal right to anonymity was shredded very early on in the proceedings. she has had to change her name and move house multiple times.
she has collapsed and is said to be in a very fragile state.
she faces much more of this abuse in the next few months. apparently trolls are still posting her name online, and she has been urged to kill herself.

THIS IS WHY WOMEN DON'T REPORT SEXUAL ASSAULT AND RAPE.

it may be on a much smaller scale for others, without the publicity, but the abuse happens. and it rips lives apart.


christ on a bike... we just don't report sexual assault and abuse. we should. but with this complete lack of anything like compassion and empathy, we don't. you know, it always seems to be our fault... in some people's eyes, and i'm sad to say that's all genders.

[EmmaPeelWannaBe]

and here in the US assault on an unconscious victim will get the rapist 3 whole months of jail time. But then he's an athlete.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Turner

[EvilBastard]

and here in the US assault on an unconscious victim will get the rapist 3 whole months of jail time. But then he's an athlete.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Turner

I think calling it an "assault" is a bit strong. I believe that the preferred term is "20 minutes of action".

[emilystrange]

AAGGHHHHHHHHHH is all i can say to that case...

i really, really want (most reprehensibly and nastily) that some of the men trolling women who complain about sexual assault experience it. being groped is no f**king fun, let me tell you. neither is the fact that it's done so casually, as a commonplace every day thing.

[Alex66]

It looks as though this case may set a troubling precedent : [/url]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... evans-case
I can't see how a persons sexual habits have to do with it, so what if they sleep with a different person of their choice every week or night. The important thing is they decided to get with who ever it was, but the moment they don't want to get with a person then thats that. I don't know the full ins and outs of this case but it does worry me that someone can buy witnesses to 'pay for them to come forward'.

[EvilBastard]

And then there's this.

Me, I would be in favour of the names of anyone arrested, for whatever suspected crime, to be held confidential until a charge is brought. When we consider the kinds of headlines concerning Christopher Jeffries, whose arrest (and subsequent release without charge) for the murder of Joanna Yeates saw the tabloids fall over themselves to dig up ever more salacious, sensationalist, and lurid details of his part, shouldn't everyone have the right to anonymity until the CPS is satisfied that there is a case to answer?

I'm entirely unclear how publishing the names of people arrested furthers the higher aim of increasing the incidence of reported sexual assaults, and although I can understand how being able to release the name of the accused might help the police with their inquiries ("Good afternoon, sir/madam - we are currently investigating whether Father Ferdinand "Fast Fingers" McFiddly was involved in the sexual abuse of minors in his care at the Papal Penitentiary For Wayward Children between 1965 and 1978") before a charge is brought, the fundamental principle of "innocence until proven guilty" must surely take precedence.

The sad fact is that, even if no charge is brought, the mud of such an accusation sticks. A friend of mine, a dedicated and committed social worker who worked in hostels and homes for children who had suffered emotional or physical abuse, was accused some year ago of "interfering" with a 14-year old girl. Those of us who knew him found it difficult to believe that he would do such a thing, but even after an extensive investigation cleared him of the offence, and no charge was brought (as it turns out, the girl in question had a track record of making such allegations against any man who appeared to show any interest in her wellbeing - possibly the result of some horrific experiences in her past), the stench hung around him for 10 years until he finally jacked in a job that he loved and changed careers.

We don't name the victims in rape cases, for good reason. But since everyone is innocent until proven otherwise, since we live in a society where people are regularly tried and convicted in the court of public opinion before a charge is brought, where tabloids routinely rake through peoples' personal histories in order to sell copy (and who among us has a past so spotless, so snow-white, that we would be happy to have someone root around in it and bare our indiscretions to the world? Obviously, we HLers are the exceptions that prove the rule, but for those who have perhaps led less blameless lives, the airing of this laundry can be at the very least career-destroying or life-altering, and in some cases life-ending), don't we owe it to everyone to shield their identities until there is a case to answer?