This is exactly wrong. He is OUT on LICENCE having served half his sentence. He would have been sacked from any other job for failing to attend work. Only an employer with the morals of a football club would be considering giving him a job.
The point of the licence period is rehabilitation. Part of that is getting ex-prisoners into work. A certain type of conviction might make a person unsuitable for certain jobs, but you can't bar somebody because of moral outrage - which is effectively what is happening with Evans.
Which is why many women are raped and there is no prosecution or no conviction. So when the jury convicts someone in these circumstances people really ought to give them them the courtesy of thinking they had good reason. I am perfectly comfortable with the ruling that I have to be 100 certain that the woman consents or it is rape. The point is that the sex act is not symmetrical, the woman needs a lot more protection from violence than the man does.
Almost all football clubs work with children in some way. He is on the sex offenders register and thus banned from doing this. So he is unsuitable to be at a football club. He needs to start his rehabilitation by taking a less high profile job. It's nothing to do with moral outrage. Do you think the CEO of say Tesco would get his old job back or similar in such a situation.
Don’t you dare apply reason to a problem. Where will that lead? The group has spoken and dissent will not be tolerated. I’ve been excluded from a jury pool because I apply reason to the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt." What’s beyond a reasonable doubt? 100% certainty. When does that exist? Never. The rest of the world will of course continue to go on with the lottery system of assigning guilt and innocence. The jury picked the guilty ball for Ched Evans and not for his pal, so who am I to question it? "Proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" in Americanese means, incidentally, "If you think the defendant is a real jerk."
Well I, and most others are not comfortable with it. A woman can and does make a decision whilst under the influence and then later cry rape when she sobers up realises what she did. The whole point of this is, that if there is no physical evidence to signify a physical assault, then it is purely one persons word against another's. Nobody can be sure, beyond a reasonable doubt in those circumstances who is telling the truth. In most cases it is down to the whims of a jury.
The whole idea of informed/uninformed consent is hugely problematic to me because it is so open to individual manipulation and circumstance. Its something that is incredibly different to prove because its a distinct issue to the levels of alcohol in someone's blood. The idea of sex (I'm talking male/female sex here) being an unequal act is also a difficult one. If we choose to define sex and rape as a purely physical act then that would be more true but the truth is that both are far more than that. I guess it boils down to whether we think a woman can rape a man, with the same emotional effects that it would have when the situation is reversed.
The death penalty isn't cruel, it's the complete opposite. It lets people avoid facing the consequences of their crimes. The murderers of that officer wanted to die. It doesn't appear to stop killers either, as the murder rate is generally higher where it's in effect. It also permanently punishes anyone who's falsely convicted. In the case of violent sex attacks, which are the minority of rapes, I'd agree with you. In a situation where intoxication is the only factor, I can't see how gender makes much of a difference. If a man's blind drunk and a woman takes advantage of him, then I'm not sure how that's different to the reverse. My main problem with the Evans conviction is the not guilty verdict for the other guy that had sex with his victim. I've no idea how the jury came to those conclusions, despite having read up on the case. Are people ok with this sort of thing in the Bill Nich thread, by the way? Just wondering what the general feeling here about political and legal discussions was.
I'm also puzzled deeply by this. Unless the woman in question was able to give consent but not able half an hour later, when CCTV footage I thought showed her going in to the room clearly unable to support herself. Maybe I'm over-simplifying the situation but surely they're both guilty or both innocent.
I understand. I just think that before a man is convicted of such a crime, incarcerated for 5+ years - and placed upon the sex offenders register, and left with the rest of his life in ruins, then a jury needs something more concrete to convict on than "he raped me - No I didn't, she consented"
Since the trial footage has come to light that shows she was quite steady on her feet, even running after a cab thinking she had left her bag or phone in it.
I wasn't aware of that SD. NSIS I completely agree what what you're saying there. I hope that came across in my posts Surely our justice system cannot convict for any crime purely on the basis of one person's word with no corroborating evidence.
You'd hope so, mate. But that's what seems to have happened to Evans. As PNP says, how can she be capable of consenting to sex with one guy, but apparently too drunk to consent with the other?
Look what image they've used to sell the Superman box set http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/superman-5-film-collection-blu-ray-7-99-amazon-2113878
http://tottenhamlive.com/threads/exclusive-kane-once-a-gunner-always-join-a-better-london-club.307/ Although clearly fake this made me laugh
Fake? Surely not? It sounds very honest and factual to me. Not sure I'd want to be a kid alone in the showers at that place though!...
