Then you have a career ahead of you as a criminal defense solicitor.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
If Ched Evans was a decent player
- Thread starter Blanchflower
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Why? What makes you think he is guilty?
Did I say that?
Nar mate. I thought you were trying to say that only someone as twisted as a criminal defense lawyer could see any innocence in him.
The more I've heard about the case, the more I've come to the same conclusion.
Wouldn't try telling that to any women though.
No, I wouldn't want him here. This wasn't like two drunk students having sex with each other. Ched could have gone for a night out, taken a girl home and had no trouble - half the Premier League probably have! What he did though, was wait for a friend to text him that he'd "caught a bird", affirm that she was drunk, wait in the hotel room and then have sex with her. There could have been no illusion of consent, he hadn't asked her to go home with him, and the incident had been pre-planned to have a drunk female bought back for him. To everyone worrying, no, it isn't easy to convict someone of rape and it definitely isn't the case that it just takes a woman with regrets calling the cops.
Justice Secretary has nothing to do with it, it's a directly elected position.
It's mainly the fact he wants to go back into a job where he's going to be a role model to young people, and that he hasn't shown any remorse or regret at all. There is no way someone can be rehabilitated if they can't even apologise or admit that what they did way on, or even so much as ask their supporters to stop harassing and abusing the victim who it is widely report has now had to move house and change her identity five times. Instead, he's appealing his conviction. Not only that, but as a professional footballer he's likely to have a direct role influencing and working with younger players which he is very clearly unsuitable for. He does have a right to rehabilitation, but he can do that without going back into football: I am sure he would be able to get a more normal job, play his part in society and lead a far more normal life than his victim is able to despite that fact that it's him who chose to commit a crime. But being a professional footballer is not a right, it is of course a tremendous privilege and for me it's one that he's thrown away and is showing no signs of earning back.
Justice Secretary has nothing to do with it, it's a directly elected position.
It's mainly the fact he wants to go back into a job where he's going to be a role model to young people, and that he hasn't shown any remorse or regret at all. There is no way someone can be rehabilitated if they can't even apologise or admit that what they did way on, or even so much as ask their supporters to stop harassing and abusing the victim who it is widely report has now had to move house and change her identity five times. Instead, he's appealing his conviction. Not only that, but as a professional footballer he's likely to have a direct role influencing and working with younger players which he is very clearly unsuitable for. He does have a right to rehabilitation, but he can do that without going back into football: I am sure he would be able to get a more normal job, play his part in society and lead a far more normal life than his victim is able to despite that fact that it's him who chose to commit a crime. But being a professional footballer is not a right, it is of course a tremendous privilege and for me it's one that he's thrown away and is showing no signs of earning back.
This is the bit I have a problem with. If he was innocent, How can he, or why would he, having spent 2 and a half years away, show remorse or regret for something he may not have have done - it would be admitting guilt surely?
Okay, what if his manager wanted to punish him and make him train with the kids. Would that even be possible as sex offender? What about community work like visiting schools and hospitals? I just don't see how someone on the sex offenders register can have this this kind of job without causing major uproar. Whether it's right or wrong any club would be mad to employ him.
Exactly. That's my point. The guy is not in a position to be making comments like that. In fact, his position is precisely the reason he should be keeping his mouth shut.
Evans as far as I know doesn't actually dispute the facts of what happened that night, only the legality of it. It's also the case that whilst he's still fighting his conviction, there's nearly no prospect of him being successful having been found guilty in his trial and failed in multiple appeals. I don't think it's viable to make these decisions on the basis that the justice system may be wrong - it's very clearly stated that Evans is a rapist and unless that changes, I think we have to accept it as the starting point.
That being said, even if the trial had gone the other way and he'd been let off, what he's openly admitted to doing was reprehensible regardless. We also know that his victim has suffered immensely due to the abuse she's received since the incident occurred. Evans could apologise for his conduct, admit it was morally wrong, and condemn in the most absolute terms the way his victim has since been treated - all whilst still contesting his legal guilt and without threatening his position. He hasn't done so, and as far as he's concerned there was nothing wrong with what he did. That's a very clear demonstration for me of why he doesn't deserve a second chance.
Sorry to go off-topic, but I wouldn't blame the PCC here, the whole idea of the role is that they're the public face of policing and bridge the gap between the police, governmental authorities and the general public in issues like this concerning justice. I do agree with you, but the gripe should really be with the Government who decided to create them and make it an elected, political position despite virtually no public interest or support.
Ok, thanks. With that attitude we are going to make no headway here. No wish to discuss further.
Hopefully, Ched Evans will be given the opportunity to continue his footballing career at Oldham. As it stands it seems a witch hunt is being played out it in the media with people playing party politics.
No criminal proceedings outstanding. Let the lad play football FFS.
No criminal proceedings outstanding. Let the lad play football FFS.
Not that it matters much but "Caught a bird?" Where did you get this from?
"During the taxi journey McDonald sent a text message to the applicant telling him that he had "got a bird" or words to that effect." R v Ched Evans (Chedwyn Evans) Citation [2012] EWCA Crim 2559
Ched claims he booked a hotel room for his mates, yes they planned on bringing some females to fuck that is not illegal.
Drunken consent is still consent legally. Did she drunkenly consent? Maybe. She wasn't passed out drunk, definitely awake enough to consent if she wished- http://www.chedevans.com/index.files/html5video/travelodge.m4v
"The applicant (Ched) performed oral sex on the complainant and then had vaginal sex with her. While it was taking place the porter went to check what was happening. He waited outside the room for a while and concluded from the noises that he could hear within the room that a couple were having sexual intercourse. No other concerns were raised in his mind."
He (Ched) claims she consented, telling him to fuck her harder and lick her out. She claims she cannot remember what happened. The night porter stated in Court that he had heard the sounds of people having sex – when pushed on this he said that he had heard both female and male voices “squealing, panting and groaning”. He also said that he heard a male voice ask for oral sex in a “playful” manner.
What is with the reverse burden of proof?
Unfortunately I don't think that there are any easy fixes and there's always going to be a gray area with sex. There's an effort ongoing in the US to really crack down with zero tolerance, especially on college campuses, ignoring the fact that zero tolerance policies almost universally backfire terribly. California has lead the way with its new "Yes Means Yes" law, which in effect means that all sex without a prior confirmation of consent is by definition rape; black and white. Sounds fine on the surface, but the implications are pretty alarming.
Say you're a college freshman, and you really hit it off with some girl at a party, and you take some girl back to your dorm. You're both a little tipsy, so you skip the pleasantries and are tearing each others' clothes off at the door. Guess what, you're a rapist. That's right, you didn't stop at the doors to ask "by the way, would you like to have sex with me?" And you failed to receive an affirmative "Why, yes, I think I would like to have sex with you tonight..." It basically chucks the theory of innocent until proven guilty right out of the window, which is a bedrock of Western Civilization, and compounds that by adding that drunkenness does not allow for positive consent.
I'm not at all positive that you can solve rape by simply ruining so many more innocent lives that the system of law literally scares people into celibacy. That does not sound like a positive and pro-active system of law to me, but it's happening.
Say you're a college freshman, and you really hit it off with some girl at a party, and you take some girl back to your dorm. You're both a little tipsy, so you skip the pleasantries and are tearing each others' clothes off at the door. Guess what, you're a rapist. That's right, you didn't stop at the doors to ask "by the way, would you like to have sex with me?" And you failed to receive an affirmative "Why, yes, I think I would like to have sex with you tonight..." It basically chucks the theory of innocent until proven guilty right out of the window, which is a bedrock of Western Civilization, and compounds that by adding that drunkenness does not allow for positive consent.
I'm not at all positive that you can solve rape by simply ruining so many more innocent lives that the system of law literally scares people into celibacy. That does not sound like a positive and pro-active system of law to me, but it's happening.
Last edited:
I'm glad this isn't a debate over whether he 'should' be able to play football again. Personally I wouldn't welcome him, the guy was convicted guilty of rape and until he is proven innocent he is guilty in the eyes of the law (even if he has served his time).
However wholeheartedly don't agree that the media and the public mob should be allowed to influence the law to the extent where he is prevented from playing football again somewhere else (this is against the law). I don't think it will happen anyway but that's not the point.
However wholeheartedly don't agree that the media and the public mob should be allowed to influence the law to the extent where he is prevented from playing football again somewhere else (this is against the law). I don't think it will happen anyway but that's not the point.
94Spurs94
I think you've read it wrong - he is contesting that she did indeed consent. He admits that they were drunk and had sex, but that isn't a crime is it? In fact in his version of events she literally asked for it, not just agreed to it. That's the real reason people have such a dislike of the verdict; if what he said was true then you absolutely cannot call that rape. It's not even like the woman was saying she'd been raped, simply that she can't remember what happened.
VirginiaSpur
I'd go one further - why is he onus on the man to get consent of the woman? Why not vice versa? It's this disgusting stereotype that all men must always be consenting to all sex with any woman at any time. As has been discussed previously, ignoring for a second the ridiculous definition of rape whereby only men can be guilty of it, women are raping men every weekend and in their hundreds. Have you ever woken up with a woman and can't remember everything of what happened? Most of us on this forum have been raped, by the same standard of which Evans has been prosecuted.
VirginiaSpur
I'd go one further - why is he onus on the man to get consent of the woman? Why not vice versa? It's this disgusting stereotype that all men must always be consenting to all sex with any woman at any time. As has been discussed previously, ignoring for a second the ridiculous definition of rape whereby only men can be guilty of it, women are raping men every weekend and in their hundreds. Have you ever woken up with a woman and can't remember everything of what happened? Most of us on this forum have been raped, by the same standard of which Evans has been prosecuted.
The sooner he gets a club and everyone moves on the better. Fed up of it.
94Spurs94 I think you've read it wrong - he is contesting that she did indeed consent. He admits that they were drunk and had sex, but that isn't a crime is it? In fact in his version of events she literally asked for it, not just agreed to it. That's the real reason people have such a dislike of the verdict; if what he said was true then you absolutely cannot call that rape. It's not even like the woman was saying she'd been raped, simply that she can't remember what happened.
I haven't. I'm a virgin
aulinhobored:
