Lee Hughes and that goalkeeper (Plymouth?) did much worse, the case against him was pretty weak at best and only survived as details of her 5 or so previous rape allegations were not classed by the judge as not to be considered, hate the pigs and ched but hes done the time
There's a sex tape online which includes Liam Lawrence, Ben Alnwick and Martin Woods all having sex with a 16-year-old girl whilst ex-City player Chris Brown 'narrates' it. I'm shocked this never went to the Crown Court.
Ah, OK - I was thinking of the actual act, rather than the filming of it. Presumably filming it is not an offence either, provided it's not shown to anyone, and publishing/distributing it is the offence?
Actually, both filming and distributing it is illegal in the UK under the Protection of Children Act 1978. You can read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom
No a judge directs a jury with regard to the definition of offences under the SOA 2003. As no one on here I assume was on the jury or attended the trial but appear to draw their conclusions from trawling the net and or reading stuff put out by those in support of Evans , I fail to see how so many seem to think they know more than the jury. If a woman is incapable of giving consent and a man goes ahead and penetrates her he is guilty of rape end of.
To put it simply: Filming is considered "taking" it; keeping/saving is considered "making" it and showing other people is considered "distributing" it. All are illegal in the UK. Like I said previously, I'm shocked it didn't go to court. The only explanation I can think of is that the girl/girl's parents did not know the players had committed a crime and brushed it off. They'd be f**ed if it ever did go to court as the evidence is online and the girl's testimony and confirmation of age would surely get a conviction. That case would've been a prosecutor's dream gig, yet it never materialised.
'I was too pissed to remember, therefore I must have been too pissed to consent' is the most bizarre basis for rape prosecution I've ever heard. As you say, we weren't on the jury, though having been foreman of the jury a couple of years ago, on a case where someone was killed, I can't say I've a lot of faith in the system(half the jury were complete imbeciles).
Without going into details of how rape is defined by the SOA 2003 the simple fact is Evans was unable to convince the jury he had reasonable belief she had consented. Has he served his sentence yes, should he be allowed to play football , well that's up to any club that will take him. As has been pointed out Lee Hughes killed someone whilst Under the influence of alcohol then fled the scene, he resumed his playing career. I wouldn't want him at city even if he was good enough which he isn't , many sheff u fans feel the same .
For the most part it isn't because people are imbeciles, it's because they aren't familiar with the legal proceedings in their own country. You don't have to be a genius to be a half-decent juror, the British educational system is partly to blame as it completely neglects the teaching of the real-world and preparing people for it. At school I never learned about taxes, loans, mortgages, job applications, insurance, jury service, politics or any other life skills. Thank f** I learned about the Pythagorean theorem though, without that s**t I'd be f**ing ruined for life.
Then how was Clayton cleared of the same charges? If she couldn't consent to one how could she consent to the other?
Because Evans couldn't convince the jury he had a reasonable belief that she consented to him penetrating her. Not sure what you've read, court reports do not as a rule detail everything so where you get your info from I've no idea, you clearly think he's innocent but and without wishing to be offensive don't understand how rape as a crime is defined. I haven't read the case I wasn't in court to hear the evidence, nor I suspect were you, therefore I cannot answer that question any more than you can tell me why Evans decided to penetrate an inebriated woman without establishing she was capable of consenting. The fact is a jury heard all the evidence Evans was not able to convince them he had a reasonable belief she consented hence they found him guilty. However if you have some compelling evidence to disprove the verdict I suggest you contact the CPS asap.
Then with all due respect your comments with regards to this case are by definition ill informed. The case against each of them was that she was too drunk to consent, she remembered nothing of what happened in the hotel room (she gave no evidence in court on this) and as there is no DNA evidence the only proof they had sex was because both defendants admitted to it. By definition how can one be cleared and one convicted, if one is cleared then she must have given him consent, which undermines her case against the other which states she was too intoxicated to give any form consent. I don't know if both are innocent or both are guilty, but it is quite staggering a jury (admittedly at the second time of asking) were able to give such contradictory verdicts.
Your argument that "the jury found him guilty so he's guilty" is rather weak considering the juries in this country are pretty dire and that wrongful convictions occur in rape cases occasionally. The victim's story doesn't add up and allegations of bribery to drop the case suggest she wasn't raped at all. It doesn't look like she suffered too much trauma if she's willing to accept money from her rapist. McDonald was accused of rape and later acquitted, according to you the woman was lying about being raped by McDonald because the jury found him innocent. Why are we supposed to believe the woman has been raped by Evans despite her lying about McDonald raping her?
My 'argument ' is that Evans was tried before a jury who heard the facts his evidence and didn't believe him, you on the other hand seem to think that despite not being present at the trial and by repeating claims you have read on the internet know that the verdict was wrong. Of course juries get it wrong, and many people suffer from miscarriages of justice including those convicted of rape. Equally Evans has every right to appeal and to campaign within the laws as allowed on the internet ( which where I suspect you got your information from) The problem I have is you just make assertions without any evidence . How do you know what trauma she did or didn't experience, you talk of 'allegations ' of bribery which are just that allegations but you assume they are fact. My concern is that underlying much of the Evans is innocent posts on here is the believe that because she was drunk she was asking for it and we've already had the 'real rape' victims argument. The fact is Evans put his case or rather his counsel did the jury , not you, heard the facts both sides which you clearly haven't and after deliberation they found him guilty. It's not my argument we are not re hearing the case here, and it's pointless thinking you are as you clearly do. Likewise it's not much help putting to me questions as if you were conducting a cross examination . You are free to believe he is innocent. I am free to believe is not, my belief is based on the verdict of the jury yours on what you have read on the internet. Again if you have such a compelling case and new evidence to back up your belief contact the CPS .
