Look at it this way. If an athlete takes steroids they are banned from the sport. If Suarez had bitten another player, there would have been calls for him to be banned from the sport permanently. What is so wrong with banning someone from sport especially a convicted rapist.
Well the first two directly impact the sport so its pretty obvious as to why the participant is banned. Why do you think football should go above and beyond the law that you have no issue in using against Evans? Are you unaware that there is no law that says he cannot continue his career?
I agree, it has been discussed to death on here, but it is still a very important case. Let us put aside the issue of protecting a victim (when there is one, as has been found here), or the confusion of what is acceptable when someone found guilty continues to argue their innocence (and often prove their argument). Lets look at the strange way the law works in this case. No victim claiming rape, only police officers listening to a series of witnesses and coming to the conclusion something was not right on the night. The decision was made to prosecute and a jury found him guilty. I have grave doubts about how that conclusion was reached and how it can be seen as clear and beyond reasonable doubt; if that qualifier should exist anymore. So was the change in the law a good thing? Let's consider the girl was not drunk and not of a somewhat dubious character in these things, allegedly (there can be no doubt Evans and his friends have appalling standards), let us pretend the girl was a woman with dementia (or some other mental issue) and that she was convinced to take part, to consent, even though no sane person could give that consent any credence or credibility. What then? Someone sees a pattern (as did the police, apparently) and then it progresses down a very similar route of justice. I think there are real issues with this law and, if nothing else, the Evans case should highlight the need for a high level review and/or a public education of it's need. None of this removes my revulsion at the social media Hue & Cry that hounds an offender, trying to follow a line of employment when under strict license terms. I think the Prime Minister is a buffoon for taking a stance. Perhaps he (Evans) should have been kept in prison to contest his innocence, as were these: More here: 10 of the worse wrongful imprisonment cases or go to the UK section for just a few of our own! I personally believe that Evans should be given an opportunity to live his life and appeal, I have always thought he should be allowed to train, now believing it should stretch to employment. On the other-hand, I believe that should a full appeal reaffirm his guilt then he should have his sentence increased two-fold.
My mistake. Whether she consented to have sex with MacDonald doesn't mean she consented to have sex with Evans when he arrived in the hotel room.
It makes the likelihood greater though as she's hardly a vestal virgin. If she'd said she refused I'd give the story more credence, but the fact that she merely said she couldn't remember would surely give 'reasonable doubt' to the accusation? When you add in the fact that she was only 2 and a half times over the drink drive limit at the time of the alleged offence, it just doesn't stack as being a cut and dried 'rape' to me.
This article in The Guardian made me laugh: http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ball-club-ched-evans-apologise-rehabilitation The hypocrisy stinks. The ****s at that newspaper have a convicted murderer called Erwin James who served 20 years behind bars writing articles for them. They've got about as much moral authority on this issue as the Daily Mail.
If Ched Evans signed for Oldham Athletic. The club have denied reports they're changing their name to Oldham Down.
The defence said she was two and half times over the limit, it wasn't a fact. Did the defence doctor examine her? Did he test how quickly alcohol left her system? None of that has been reported. When she was examined by the police doctor she had no alcohol in her blood. It showed traces of cocaine and cannabis but no alcohol. There's video evidence from the pub that showed her falling over in the street. The jury would have seen whatever was recorded on the phone just before he had sex with her so that would have given a clearer indication. Evans in his appeal said she suffered black outs. So she may have blacked out before Evans got there or shortly afterwards. Someone who blacked out cannot consent. The jury agreed she consented to having sex with MacDonald so they knew she wasn't a vestal virgin. So the question is what evidence did they hear to suggest she didn't agree to a threesome. Its a fact they didn't think she consented because he went to prison and MacDonald didn't. The evidence they had available included the CCTV from the pub/takeaway, the CCTV from the hotel, the mobile phone footage, the evidence of the porter, the lack of DNA evidence, the closing of the curtains, the lies to get in and the sneaking out, Evans' performance in the witness box, whether there was any differences in the evidence given by MacDonald and Evans and the medical evidence from the doctor that examined her. Unless you read the transcripts you don't know the reasons they convicted him.
Ched Evans is a convicted rapist. In accordance with the laws in this country, he served half his sentence in custody, and the remainder under supervision in the community. He will be risk assessed and any occupation must be approved by the probabion services. If there is a high chance of him reoffending, he will not be allowed to work in his chosen proffession. Sin e he is looking at a return to football, one must assume its been approved by probation. People in this country get justice mixed up with vengeance, they demand their pound of flesh. He is complying with the law, the people denying him the human right to work possibly aren't.
I do wonder what a footballer would have to do to never play again. *****phile? But if said ***** was banging in 20 goals a season at a high level I reckon he would get a job with a club somewhere.
I thought the law said when you've done your time that's it, what about Mike Tyson, I bet nobody even remembers he was a convicted rapist when they are laughing at the Hangover. His crime (Evans) will live with him forever and thats enough punishment.
It was a fact, in fact it was a worst case scenario fact. As she had no alcohol in her system at the time of testing so they worked back what the maximum alcohol content she could have had in her blood stream at the point of the incident, that would have left her clear at the time of testing. The CCTV evidence from the hotel shows her walking in without a problem and then going back outside on her own to pick up the pizza box. Believe what you want mate, I'm just not having it.
What about the video evidence taken outside the window? I thought it was a fact that the rate alcohol leaves the blood stream is different for different people. The earlier CCTV evidence showed her so pissed she fell over. Finally what about her black outs?
Yet the cctv evidence at the premier inn shows her aware of whats going on. Is there any evidence that this blackout occured? Does she have a history of blackouts?
Doesn't show her having energetic sex with Ched Evans though does it? If he'd have left the curtains open his brother's, or was it his mate, mobile phone footage would have shown what happened. If she suffers from black outs she could have picked up the pizza one minute and be sparko the next. Someone who's blacked out cannot consent to having sex.
The mobile footage you keep mentioning and others question why he would close the curtains, would you want your brother filming you having sex? I am not sure how that in anyway confirms his guilt. Also, what kind of rapist performs oral sex on his victim? Weirder still that she was unconscious...
All women ask for it, we all know that - why are people so mealy-mouthed on here? A mate of mine in Barcelona knows Luis Enrique and apparently Chet may be heading there shortly while Messi comes to Oldham.
Of course this might be argued, but can you not see how tenuous it is? Certainly not strong enough for me to send anyone to prison. You make much of the video from outside the window, but what did it show, we don't know, do we. We do know the curtain was closed, but why not, would he really want some pratt uploading it to YouTube? I think it has been well established that Evans was in mercenary mode, but was he in rape mode? What we do know, because we can watch the video, is that not too long prior to the alleged rape, she walked totally unhindered from the taxi, she then remembered her pizza and she easily walked back and bent to pick it up. I agree that is not a full blown sobriety test, but it is a fairly decent and timely indicator that she was reasonably aware of what she was doing and what her surroundings were -she was walking unhindered, unforced and, seemingly, quite ready for what was coming and there can be no doubts about what she was expecting in general terms. There is just too much supposition in this and not enough proof - she didn't even make an accusation ffs. Once the Police did then the Facebook became active - until sneakily deleted.
Also where do you draw the line on what the crime is? Does anyone with a criminal record not have a right to be a professional footballer?
