Wouldn't want him here because like it or not it will sully our Club. Football fans don't have a reputation as being touchy feely forgive and forget types. But I actually think that once prisoners have done their time they must be allowed to move on. Don't forget he'll be on licence for a long time and that will require some embarrassing supervising visits by The Probation Department. Pointless going over the evidence really - he's got the conviction like it or not. But rapes are notoriously difficult to prove, especially when drink is involved, but there is a recent trend legally and socially that men cannot take advantage of drunken women as they are deemed incapable of giving consent. So whatever your views, we are definitely not dealing with someone who preyed on women, accosting them as they walked home in the dark, that sort of thing. Yes, rape is rape, but taking advantage of a pissed woman who has already agreed to willingly go back to your hotel room is much less aggravating than the one I mentioned. That's why his sentence was low, and why he got early release. My personal view? He was a fool but not a predator.
The women was drunk, yet in the video's she knew exactly what she was doing when she walked into the hotel, the evidence if I remember rightly focused on her falling whilst still in the town, and that was used to say she was too drunk to consent, bollocks, she was back at that hotel looking fine, yes maybe a bit drunk, but no way was she too drunk. The guy was innocent IMO, and the only reason he was sent away was because as with many things, we do not live in an equal opportunities world as many think we do now, women are still held in too high a view. We are too protective. I mean when a rape complaint is made, the womens name is usually a secret, but the accused name is not, why? We are much too protective, and its not going to change any time soon. Now I don't mean that in a bad way, but am sorry there was no way they could prove he raped her IMO, yet he got sent away. Based on the fact she was "too drunk", but NOT "too drunk" to screw his mate. Work that out, was she too drunk for consensual sex, or not? You can't pick and choose. Its yes or no, not yes for him, no for him 2 minutes later. Too me it was all circumstantial, and for me its not a true guilty verdict, its guesswork, and from what I have seen and heard about it, they got it wrong. Even those who knew her, didn't have many good things to say about the girl, they said that was the sort of girl she was. Didn't she even brag about it in texts or something afterwards? So yes I would be fine having him come play for us.
Like I said swanselona he was a fool not a predator. But I find it hard to believe that there wasn't more to it because 12 people would have to be satisfied he was guilty, and historically rapes are very difficult to prove. Two guys were acquitted in Swansea last year in similar circumstances. I think the point is that whether we like it or not he's got the conviction. The question is about allowing him back into football. Don't see a problem myself.
His girlfriend has stuck by him,which she surely wouldn't if she thought him guilty of being a rapist?
But he did **** around behind her back - not that it's a crime. Good that they have been able to work it out but if my wife caught me playing away I'd wake up with my balls chopped off. Bless her.
Lots of people stick with their partners no matter what they have done. Look at victims of domestic abuse as an example. Many stay with their partners on promises they will change or they didnt mean it and so on. Doesn't make what they do untrue. Some people aren't strong enough or feel dependent upon that person to the degree that they will put up with anything. As they say rape is about power not sex. Who knows how she is treated behind closed doors. Bottom line 12 of his peers found him guilty, the fact that his girlfriend is sticking by him doesn't change this or cast doubt on the verdict.
You have a point, Bob. 12 people (or 10 on a majority verdict) would have to be sure he was guilty. They heard all the evidence, we didn't. But the point of the OP was should he allowed back into his profession? The answer must be yes.
If he was a sports teacher in the local school would you allow him to have his job back once he has "paid his dues"? Would you want a convicted rapist teaching your children? The fact is, he is a convicted rapist and registered sex offender which precludes him from many professions and I personally think that playing football should be included. Whether we like it or not highly paid sports people are held up as role models and I dont think someone like this should be in a position of influence like that.
There are lots before him who have committed a lot of different offences, Some in my opinion worse some not as bad all are back in football. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...A79BxuR-oRMgsaK57Q&bvm=bv.77161500,bs.1,d.ZWU http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...CLqJ5RgfPTB7LnDcKQ&bvm=bv.77161500,bs.1,d.ZWU http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...dbyLFOZvx7gxkqTq7Q&bvm=bv.77161500,bs.1,d.ZWU I still wouldn't want any of them including Evans at my club.
"Would you want a convicted rapist teaching your children?" Adults who rape adults aren't usually *****philes. I say again, this has all the hallmarks of a foolish young man being led on by a pissed woman who then (apparently) withdrew consent. Hardly a predator then, particularly as up until then he had no previous convictions. You can be a registered sex offender if you're pissed and pinch a girl's backside in the pub (indecent assault). As with everything, it's a question of degree. To ignore the circumstances of any offending is sticking your head in the sand. One foolish act doesn't equal an ongoing risk imo.
I still don't get it, can anyone explain it too me, because I must be simple minded. The case was based around the girl being too drunk to consent to sex, that is the be all and end all of the case. They used camera footage of her falling over in the town as proof she was too drunk. And seeing as that was the main part of the case, how can a women be seen to be sober enough to give consent to have sex with Clayton, but then a few minutes later, be deemed too drunk to give consent to have sex with Evans. The jury found Clayton innocent, yet Evans guilty. How can they possibly come to that conclusion, its either she was too drunk or not. If she was too drunk, as the camera footage suggests, then both are guilty, if she was not too drunk, then neither are guilty. They can't have it both ways, and it is for that reason I believe Evans is innocent, and wrongly convicted. If you can explain how both men can get different verdicts for the same offence, then I may change my opinion that I would welcome him to play for our club.
Like I said Swanselona, the jury heard every bit of evidence, we didn't. You're only basing your decision from a video. There would have been much more than that in order for them to convict. Trying to second guess the way a jury collectively thinks is almost impossible when the result apparently makes no sense. The law was changed relatively recently so that very inebriated/ unconscious women aren't capable of consenting. Maybe it was the chronology of events, the time lapse, who knows? Whichever way you look at it nobody can say he's the type of man who preys on women, nor is he a *****phile, so of course he should be allowed back in football. He's going to find it difficult though.
But he is not a teacher of any subject in a school, which distorts the context. He is a professional athlete. For the most part, a child would only know that Evans has been convicted of anything if an adult told them.
I didn't say he was a *****phile. I was making the point if his chosen profession was as a teacher he wouldnt be allowed to go back to his job nor would most parents want a convicted rapist teaching their children. The comparison being he would be in a position of influence. Dont think many people would want that. You are quite right you could be charged with sexual assault for that but being registered as a sex offender doesn't naturally follow. As for sticking my head in the sand and ignoring the circumstances not at all. It is not something I need to be concerned about as the judge has already looked at the circumstances so I dont need to. Dont forget he directs the jury prior to deliberation and once they have decided he will then look at pre sentencing reports which take into consideration the "circumstances " before passing judgement. If he has decided that the guy is a rapist and should be on the sexual offenders register then that is that. The degrees you are talking about are already in place as in length of sentence how long they are on the register (if at all) and so on. He could have put Evans on the register for 5 years but he didnt. Part of his sentence is being placed on the register and only probation and the judge know what was in those pre sentencing reports that helped him make that decision.
Nothing hysterical about my comments at all and I am not distorting the context, merely making a comparison of positions of influence. Police Officers, teachers, politicians, celebrities and professional sports people etc. High profile and/or serving the public. Either way not a job for a convicted rapist.
Since you want to deny him the remuneration of his best profession and apparently others for which he might be able to gain employment .... which would probably leave him bagging groceries in Tescos .... would you be the first to chip in to make up the difference in income. You are asking that society now financially damage an individual who has already paid the dues society has deemed as appropriate punishment .... just because it upsets your sensibilities. Will ok then, we'll respect your sensibilities if you make up the difference in his income.
