so in your view then dragon you are found guilty after a lengthy trial but we should ignore that and act as if he did nothing. Lets do the same with ****files who say they are innocent and let them get jobs in schools. Or let doctors or lawyers who have been struck off to continue practising for the sheer fun of it. Ched evens no matter what any of us think has been convicted and that is a fact. It dont matter what he says he was found guilty so as with people in the public eye who has influence on the young and vulnerable then as a precaution he must not be allowed to become a public figure....
People are found guilty when in actual fact they are innocent, that happens all day long, it's got a hell of a lot to do with the integrity of the Jury members and how good his Legal team is, and whether the police have been honest as well, which is a big issue these days. Some people will say he is guilty as hell, I heard the debate on Radio 2 this afternoon, and most that phoned in have your view Dai, though a few felt he should go back to his job he's done his time. My view is that while he has maintained his innocence throughout, then why should he have to apologise for something he hasn't done, and why shouldn't he continue as a Professional footballer? and until the CCRC have looked into this case I will reserve my Judgement, and say he should play, if after this final appeal he is still found guilty then it's down to the clubs and FA to decide how this should go.
Why do you insist on conflating totally unrelated factors into the Evans situation. First, Evans is not a *****phile; many such people have demonstrated mental illness and as a result have a compulsion to repeat their acts. Doctors, lawyers, accountants and other licensed professionals are commonly struck off for violations of the conditions of their license, generally malpractice in their profession. They are not struck off because they are people in the "public eye". It is not common knowledge about anybody you pass in the street that they have a criminal record. Nobody goes around wearing a sign that says "I f**ed up, please shun me". To have that knowledge you need to be a nosy busy body up to no f**ing good or delight in the ridicule and put down of others (that seems to ring a bell doesn't it). No child unless an adult makes a point of pointing it out is going know, has a need to know, or a care to know that Evans has been convicted of rape. Only adults with nothing of value to do are going to make a point of doing that. The pope presides over an entire institution that has systemically on a global basis for decades or more sexually assaulted and betrayed the trust of countless thousands of minors, and then conspired to obstruct justice and the prosecution of those criminals and then interfere with the civil recourse of those damaged. I don't see you on a crusade to shut down your local catholic church. If ever there was a group of people who are in the "public eye", all wearing the same uniform, spouting the same centuries old mythological s**t and still allowed to engage with the public and influence minors .... this would be it. If that organization is allowed to continue its chosen profession instead of being shutdown and kicked out because of the vulnerability of minors to suddenly become sexual predators, burning incense and chanting boogy-woogy-bull-s**t ... then I don't see why some kid is suddenly going to be at risk of being demoralized because of Evans.
Its a fact that people who are innocent get convicted but that is not the issue here. He was convicted and sentenced to 5 years in prison and thats what counts. Even if we believe he is innocent which i dont then as a precaution he should not be allowed back into the public domain where he is a public figure until in his case he can prove his innocence and gets the court to overturn the conviction.....We cant allow one person through the system that is here to protect people from ever being subjected to an evil crime or it will open the floodgates to all sorts of disgusting crimes to return to make a mockery out of the criminal system....
yankee im making a point here. It's not about what profession people are in it's about being convicted in a crime that is deemed serious and disgusting enough to warrent a 5 year sentence. Rapists,****'s are no different they are both evil crimes and you would not let your child attend a school where you know a convicted **** was working would you....the same applies to ched. Why should young female supporters be subjected to this evil guy.....
A convicted peadophile wouldn't get a job in an educational setting in the first place, therefore that comparison is moot.
Yes, they are! From a point of view of mental illness they are most definitely different. I challenge you to go spouting this nonsense in the public domain and let's see how badly you get hit with lawsuits.
So a rapist, or a teacher or a motor mechanic cant have mental illness...what has mental illness got to do with being convicted by a court of law. the same punishment will be given whether you have mental illness or not.... A convicted peadophile wouldn't get a job in an educational setting in the first place, therefore that comparison is moot. thats right they wouldn't valley and neither should convicted rapists be allowed back in the public eye...
No,I gave it to this guy. [video=youtube;FOt3oQ_k008]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOt3oQ_k008[/video]
they wouldn't, but thats because they post an obvious threat to the people they work with. and for that reason it would be fine for a rapist to work in a setting which wouldn't put people at risk. a footballer who has been convicted of rape does not put people at risk by plying his trade. it just means he'll have to do another job. if he worked in a shop would that be ok? no, according to your theory. the real reason is that you want to punish him by stopping him from working completely, thats a valid viewpoint but one you should admit to having. and in any case, people are querying the conviction on a point of law, namely that in this case it seems that the victim was too drunk to remember anything, and following R v Bree, evans shouldn't have been convicted, i know its more complicated than that, but you wouldn't understand if i went into the intricacies. peoples reactions on here would be completely different if it was a clear cut rape which he pleaded guilty to.
Evans knew the girl was heavily under the influence of alcohol. She didn't invite him to the room. He slunk in like a thief in the night,and took advantage of her. If that isn't rape,I don't know what is.Were I a jury member, I would found him guilty. R v Bree not withstanding.
Unfortunately, the way the courts went about it, it was based on whether she was "too drunk to give proper consent". Its why they tried to figure out how much she drank, what else was in her system, as they found cocaine and cannabis. She could still have said yes on the night, but the courts were basing on how drunk she was, after all she woke up the next morning claiming she had no memory. That's why it all stinks, she said yes to McDonald, or at least gave him the impression he could have sex with her, which is why he was found not guilty, Evans on the other hand was found guilty, on the understanding that she was too drunk to give proper consent, NOT that she didn't give consent. This is the big grey area surrounding the case. Both instances are after she finished drinking, yet one was guilty of rape and the other not. Again, on the basis that she was too drunk to give proper consent, NOT that she didn't give consent. What this case has proved, is that even if a women says yes, it is down to you as the man to judge whether she is sober enough for that yes to mean anything, its a load of sexist bullshit if you ask me. Its like a guy goes to a nightclub, picks up this girl, sleeps with her, wakes up the following day finding out she is only 15 (we all know the wonders of make-up and how girls are not the same now as when i was in school) and being done as a *****phile. She is in a nightclub ffs, you know, 18+, so how is the guy supposed too know. Us guys now have to take a bloody blood test kit with us, a computer to check ages, and all sorts on a night out, why because we are the sorry ****s that get done afterwards. Why is it down to us to make sure, why can't women look after their ****ing selves and take responsibility of their own actions like they try to make us guys do when **** hits the fan with those who are not guilty of rape and that sort of stuff. She could not remember the night, so no-one knows whether she said yes or not. It is why the case was not about her not saying yes, its about whether she was in a fit enough state for any consent to be deemed proper consent. I mean I have slept with drunk girls, hell I have been drunk myself, next time around I am going to claim I was too drunk for my consent to be deemed proper, see how far it will get me, as a bloke. Nowhere, and fast thats where.
Missing the point guys. You can debate the rights and wrongs of the conviction all day wrong - as a retired criminal barrister I find it a curious verdict bearing in mind what happened to the co-def but that's by the by and I wasn't in court to hear it all. There are mechanisms in place to correct rogue verdicts and ultimately greater minds than yours or mine will have to consider the question of the conviction if it arises again. The principal question is whether he should be allowed to carry on his profession. Couple of things - firstly, Yankee's points are valid. You can't compare *****philes and rapists. The former aren't allowed anywhere near children because the law considers them to have a virtually incurable mental illness. I've lost count of the times I've read in Pre-Sentence Reports from Probation that a child abuser "says he has reformed and is well intentioned but in time will no doubt become a recidivist". Rapists can be serial of course but nobody is suggesting that here. So Daiswan's comments: "as a precaution he should not become a public figure" as well as "what has mental illness got to do with being convicted by a court of law. the same punishment will be given whether you have mental illness or not" are just plain wrong. Frankly, it sounds like the rabble with their pitchforks and flaming torches simply want to continue punishing someone after doing their time, and are trying to justify that by saying he's a 'role model', 'think of the children', yadda yadda yadda. It's disingenuous and completely vindictive.
Well In my eyes he is not a Rapist until his final appeal has been heard, and until the CCRC rubber stamp the decision of the original Jury, I will keep my powder dry. Whether he plays for SheffU or not is of no interest to me at this time, but what is of interest is justice, and there are far too many issues that trouble me in this case, so I will wait on the CCRC. I'm sure all the witches will be out in force when he makes his video statement..................
why are sports people regarded as role models? rugby league players over here I would say 90% cannot say 5 words without adding you know to the comment. Would one want Rooney as a role model for your kid? I would rather kick the **** out of the spoilt prick who earns a fortune for being average
