Forum menu
poah - Member
really, why would that be? so anyone thats found not guilty is an unproven criminal? what a world we live in that you think that way.
Really, I'm surprised you think otherwise.
You were born in the 50's, continue to have a "little lady" attitude and probably think any female that wears a shirt skirt is asking for it. And I claim my £5.
There is always moral elbow room in these thing which is why we have juries.
Really, I'm surprised you think otherwise.You were born in the 50's, continue to have a "little lady" attitude and probably think any female that wears a shirt skirt is asking for it. And I claim my £5
you are applying a moralstic standard to the law which is wrong. The man is innocent untill proven guilty, he was found not guilty ergo still innocent. You're discrimination here is just as bad as sexism and racism.
FYI - born in the 70's, my wife hasnt worn a skirt in years and I've got no interest in having sex with other woman (or men). TBF when we were going out she had sex pants and a sex skirt so if she wore that then yes she was asking for it 😉
His return to work should be on the basis of footballing judgement.
Not just. If footballers are supposed to be role models (rightly or wrongly, they are); and if football clubs are supposed to be community based, community supporting enterprises, there's also a judgement about whether he's a suitable employee.
The fact a proportion of the club's fanbase will forgive almost anything as long as he's banging the goals in regularly shouldn't be a factor in that. They're the ones in the wrong there, the club has every right to distance themselves from him if they choose.
So when Sheffield United named that stand after Jess Ennis do you think that a part of that agreement was that she be allowed to veto the signing of any player who's moral standards she found unacceptable . Where should the line be drawn , can't sign him because he has a parking ticket , speeding ticket , tax fraud etc etc . The whole concept of the English law system is that you serve your time and that's your punishment . She should not have been interfering with football matters and affecting his employment prospects.
So when Sheffield United named that stand after Jess Ennis do you think that a part of that agreement was that she be allowed to veto the signing of any player who's moral standards she found unacceptable .
I was under the impression she didnt want her name associated with Evans thats notvthe dame thing. The club could have re named the stand and kept Evans. She is entitled to her opinion.
you are applying a moralstic standard to the law which is wrong. The man is innocent untill proven guilty, he was found not guilty ergo still innocent.
No one is saying he is guilty what we are saying is he still looks like a dirty little sex pest with low morals.
No one is saying he is guilty what we are saying is he still looks like a dirty little sex pest with low morals.
who gives a flying ****?
I do. I love football and the behaviour of these young men with so much in front of them, chances that many others would give their right arm for, constantly bringing the game into disrepute makes me care a lot.
Plus it means the egg chasers get to point and sneer a bit more.
who gives a flying ****?
I do. I certainly wouldnt pay to watch him play football. I also think that it certainly says something about you if you dont care.
I do. I certainly wouldnt pay to watch him play football. I also think that it certainly says something about you if you dont care
it says nothing about me, I don't care if this guy a perv or wither he cheats on his girlfriend or anything else he does within the law of the land.
it says nothing about me, I don't care if this guy a perv or wither he cheats on his girlfriend or anything else he does within the law of the land.
You are entitled to your opinion but it says something about you as far as I'm concerned
and you think that says nothing about you? 😯
You are entitled to your opinion but it says something about you as far as I'm concerned
so it says somthing about me that I don't care about the private/personal life of someone I don't know and will never know?
I'm curious to know why I should care?
He's not necessarily innocent. They just weren't able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he was guilty.
Same could be said for any not guilty verdict, no matter how strong the defence. Are they all not innocent in your eyes? Jury took only 2 hours, so appears fairly cut and dry to me.
No one is saying he is guilty what we are saying is he still looks like a dirty little sex pest with low morals.
He does..but then again so does the girl involved who appears to be, lets be honest, a bit of a 'slut'.
It sounds like they were a good match for each other
FWIW I don't believe he raped her - I was only stating that the court has not proven him 'innocent'.
I was only stating that the court has not proven him 'innocent'
The court decides guilt not innocence given that you are innocent till proven guilty.
[quote=poah ]so it says somthing about me that I don't care about the private/personal life of someone I don't know and will never know?
I'm curious to know why I should care?
Yet here you are...
[quote=tpbiker ]Jury took only 2 hours, so appears fairly cut and dry to me.
Fairly cut and dried that there was reasonable doubt - I'm sure you'll agree that you can't read any more into it than that.
FWIW I'm not sure what you think is particularly wrong with the morals of the girl involved - apart from being a bit promiscuous which isn't really something we frown on all that much nowadays is it? I'm not quite sure how that compares with the morals and actions of Evans.
Those who berate Evans - due to his behaviour...or comments about girls liking footballers with money...or something else?
FWIW I'm not sure what you think is particularly wrong with the morals of the girl involved - apart from being a bit promiscuous which isn't really something we frown on all that much nowadays is it? I'm not quite sure how that compares with the morals and actions of Evans.
I'm struggling to see much of a difference if im honest - he tries it on in a sleezy way, shes up for it cause shes a tramp. I think the morals of both are at a similar level.
Im sure similar happens across the country on a vast scale every weekend
Are you unaware of the circumstances here, or just ignoring them?
Yes quite aware. He invited himself round and arogantly thought as he was a footballer she'd be happy for him to get involved.
By all accounts it looks like she was.
What am I missing oh wise one?
ewwwww! sloppy seconds
I'm curious to know why I should care?
Because the less sex pests who dont make much if any effort to ascertain consent before shagging a pissed up bird we have in our society the better...just my opinion though. You obviously have different morals to me.
I'm struggling to see much of a difference if im honest - he tries it on in a sleezy way, shes up for it cause shes a tramp.
We could do with less people holding views like this too.
Oh and aracer...I hope my views do say something about me
Ah, my comment was aimed at poah, but you posted whilst I was typing - I thought the context would make things clear without needing to edit or add a quote.
Though I think all of our views says something about us.
Fair enough... my comment stands though. You can learn a lot about people by listening to their views
Because the less sex pests who dont make much if any effort to ascertain consent before shagging a pissed up bird we have in our society the better...just my opinion though. You obviously have different morals to me
how is he a sex pest?
you can't make a any comment on the condition of the girl as you were not there and she can't remember. He is innocent of the crime remember.
It' s a shame that since the infamous session of 5 footballers and one girl that the moral standards of well paid 20 years olds hasn't got better.
It is a sad fact that women will throw themselves at men with money and status ( as Peter Crouch once nicely summed up) - not many of the WAGs are too shabby. Some of their partners, however ....
It would be good that the industry that they are in starts teaching them about conduct and image rights and what it means.
Evans and his mate are scummy .... but I guess just as scummy as a lot of youf these days. Hardly glowing behaviour ... but not a rapist.
you can't make a any comment on the condition of the girl as you were not
Except for us knowing she was staggering about pissed!
Listen, you have your opinion I'll have mine.
how is he a sex pest*?
Well we have all had sex with someone we have never met, never spoken to , dont know their name , who we burst in on whilst they are having sex with our mate , ask for a go, **** them, then leave them all whilst they are so drunk they wont remember it and we have a partner at home.
Like you I have no idea why so many are judging this man to be a "sex pest*"
He is an example to us all about how we should conduct ourselves
Lets be honest we all hope our daughters meet a man like him and our sons grow up to act like him.
WARNING POST CONTAINS IRONY
* not really sure what sex pest means exactly but FFS it not hard to see why he is being judged. Nothing illegal and nothing admirable
* not really sure what sex pest means exactly but FFS it not hard to see why he is being judged. Nothing illegal and nothing admirable
I think that sums up the term sex pest quite well!
I have no issue with him being judged, my only beef is that double standards seem to apply in situations like this. ie greater blame and condemnation always apears to fall on the side of the bloke involved.Given the reports, i think it could be argued that the girl falls under the term 'sex pest' as well!
Doubt either set of parents can be too proud.
ie greater blame and condemnation always apears to fall on the side of the bloke involved
Yes its odd that folk often judge the alleged rapist as worse that the alleged victim- who knows why this is its truly unfathomable.
Like you I am also livid about this
WARNING POST CONTAINS IRONY
Yes its odd that folk often judge the [s]alleged rapist[/s] acquited defendent as worse that the [s]alleged victim[/s] apparently willing participent
Would be another way of looking at it...
Why do you think her willing?
because if it wasn't it would have been rape....and the Jury found him not guilty of that.
Sex pest is something different IMO.
Have to say I'm less harsh on them both then most on here, not sure I can express why in words that won't have me flamed.
Nice Victorian attitude tpbiker
because if it wasn't it would have been rape....and the Jury found him not guilty of that.
Well now you're getting confused about what the jury verdict shows. They have simply decided that there was reasonable doubt that she was unwilling
We seem to be in a pointless circular argument here.
I hope my son grows up with a better attitude to women, sex and relationships than Evans.
I hope my daughter grows up to have a better attitude to men, sex and relationships than the woman involved. Or Evans partner, for that matter.
greater blame and condemnation always apears to fall on the side of the bloke involved
its still because he is an alleged rapist and she is a victim.
You can re write it as you see fit but the reality is you are confused as to why "victims" get an easier ride than " accused".
Acquitted does not mean innocent and it does not prove she was willing
[url= https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/ ]LINKED AGAIN FROM SECRET BARISTER[/url]
1. So Ched Evans has been proved innocent, right?
Wrong. You’d be forgiven for thinking this, given that it was in the prepared statement read out by his solicitor, but Ched Evans has not “demonstrated his innocence”. That is not how our criminal justice system operates. It is not a means by which the truth of a situation or event is conclusively and fully determined. Rather the jury are asked one simple question – are you sure that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt (or, as juries are commonly instructed, so that you are sure)? “Not guilty” means just that. The jury were not sure that he was guilty. They may have decided that he was totally, utterly innocent, but we don’t know. All we know is that they considered the evidence, and were less than sure of his guilt. As I tell juries in every closing speech – if you think the defendant probably did it, he’s still not guilty.
I wish we had passed the point where rape victims and those who go to trial on this are not the ones who get trashed - sadly some folk are not as enlightened and still wish to have a go at the women/victims;calling her a slut and saying she is just is bad is ludicrous - has she been charged with any offence? What offence could she be charged with ? They are not equivalent.
Its worth noting again she never even accused him of rape she merely said she couldn't remember what happened
I have no desire to discourse this further with you as I find your attitude to be as bad , and indefensible, as Cheds
Nice Victorian attitude tpbiker
I fail to see why the ackowlegement that woman can be as responsible for the sexual encounters they have as guys is a 'victorian attitude'.
Given the outcome of the case the probability is that she was willing to engage in a 3 up with 2 guys shes never met. IMO thats no better than the guy trying his luck in the first place.
Others may disagree
No, youve used various negative terms for them both.
Junkyard
She is not a victim - there is no crime for her to be a victim of.
He is innocent - because he's not guilty.
In the real world that is, maybe not yours...which just seems as extreme but the polar opposite of tp's.
Its worth noting again she never even accused him of rape she merely said she couldn't remember what happened
This bit kind of puzzles me as I can't find any info about how this originally came to be reported as a possible crime to the Police? She's not accused him of rape, has no recollection of it happening, and (allegedly/apparently) has a history of similar behaviour, so how did the Police investigation get started - someone must have reported the events surrounding it?
Well now you're getting confused about what the jury verdict shows. They have simply decided that there was reasonable doubt that she was unwilling
No I'm not at all. I fully understand what a not guilty verdict means, and I'm inclined to think he didn't do it. You may well disagree. Twist it how you like but hes innocent in the eyes of the law.
I wish we had passed the point where rape victims and those who go to trial on this are not the ones who get trashed - sadly some folk are not as enlightened and still wish to have a go at the women/victims;calling her a slut and saying she is just is bad is ludicrous - has she been charged with any offence? What offence could she be charged with
She shouldn't be charged with anything. Remind me where I said she should be. She not guilty of any crime, but neither is Ched.
I have no desire to discourse this further with you as I find your attitude to be as bad , and indefensible, as Cheds
Get a grip. I have as much distain for Ched as the next man, nowhere have I condoned what he did. My attitude towards women is the polar opposite of his, and I think its pretty ignorant and insulting of you to suggest otherwise.
Hold off on the personal insults in future when someone holds a diffent opinion to you
because if it wasn't it would have been rape....and the Jury found him not guilty of that.
Not necessarily. Rape is not a straightforward offence. There are three elements, and to get a conviction the prosecution must convince the jury that all three are met.
1) Was there penetrative sex?
2) Did the victim/complainer consent to it?
3) Did the accused reasonably believe that they consented?
So, hypothetically, the jury could have concluded as follows..
1) Was there penetrative sex? Yes, 100%, not in any doubt, he admitted this aspect.
2) Did she consent? Let's suppose for a moment that the jury concluded, with absolute certainty, that no, she couldnt, she was too drunk to consent.
3) Did he reasonably believe that she consented? The jury would consider his evidence, her evidence, and any other relevant evidence in assessing whether or not they think he [i]believed[/i] that she consented, and whether his belief was reasonable.
The jury might be 100% convinced that sex took place, AND 100% convinced that she didn't or couldn't consent, but if they are not 100% (or 99%) sure that he didn't reasonably believe she consented, the verdict is not guilty. The point is, certainty that she didn't consent is not in itself enough to convict, and conversely, a verdict of not guilty does not necessarily mean the jury thought she consented.
[quote=tpbiker ]No I'm not at all. I fully understand what a not guilty verdict means
Are you sure? Because it certainly doesn't mean she was a willing participant, nor that the jury have decided she was a willing participant by any standard of proof. Which is what you appear to be claiming it shows.
This bit kind of puzzles me as I can't find any info about how this originally came to be reported as a possible crime to the Police? She's not accused him of rape, has no recollection of it happening, and (allegedly/apparently) has a history of similar behaviour, so how did the Police investigation get started - someone must have reported the events surrounding it?
There are lots of ways. We've had calls from people who wake up and wonder if their drink was spiked, go to hospital or the doctor feeling 'a bit funny' downstairs, passers by reporting someone in distress, and one who woke up to a text from a lad thanking her for a good time and she had no idea what he was talking about. All these things, if reported to the police by them or a third party, will initiate an investigation to try and establish what happened. Some of these turn into rape investigations.