[Closed] So.....Ched Evans

Alive and kicking on the Jamie Oliver thread, strangely.

ah.....I looked for Ched, but didn't spot that one. I'll move over to the other thread!

/troll_on

apparently it was good rape and not bad rape so i reckon he should even get back pay from his time inside.

/troll_off

public figure and role model. if the club had any sence/morals they wouldnt even let him cut the grass

If society's rules are unilateral, yes. If it's different rules for different people, not necessarily yes.

If it's different rules for different people, not necessarily yes.

Unrepentant* convicted rapist in a role model/aspirational public job, not good really.

*See whether he changes tack if his last appeal fails...
and will anyone believe him if he does?

[nicked off twitter]

Newcastle United announce their front 3 for the weekend;

[img] [/img]

[/nicked off twitter]

Maybe if we can get more convicted rapist footballers, people will finally stop treating them as role models?

Is part of the problem that we have made footballers role models, despite so much evidence to the contrary?

I have no issue with a released prisoner getting his job back when the justice of the times has been served. But he would be a lamb to tbe slaughter to opposition fans.

Is part of the problem that we have made footballers role models, despite so much evidence to the contrary?

Plenty of unconvicted rapists in the game as well.

With football, money talks.. Wikipedia has him at 59 goals in 167 games at Championship/League 1 level, inc 35 in 42 games in his final season, so he will undoubtedly find another club.. they'll be protests initially and then he'll start scoring and it'll slowly die down.. he's 25 so still got age on his side, so a few clubs will go in for him. I'm not saying he should have this chance, I'm just being realistic about what will happen.

Lee Hughes had a similar case (killed someone due to dangerous driving, fled the scene, probably drink driving as well) and after protests he came back and had a moderately successful career with a few different clubs

Again, not condoning any of this, just stating what will happen IMO.

Convicted rapist is released from prison having served his term. He is looking to return to his job, a job where he has no unsupervised time with women and has 20,000 people watching his every move. It is also the only job he has any skills in having done it since he was 16 therefore he is likey to be on benefits if he is not allowed into it as his sills are not transferable.

Yes, let him return to work.

It's not going to be that pleasant for either him or Sheffield united is it?

Or the victim.

Lee Hughes had a similar case (killed someone due to dangerous driving, fled the scene, probably drink driving as well) and after protests he came back and had a moderately successful career with a few different clubs

Killed two people, served 5 years & returned to playing - is still playing now in the Conference. Saw him play a few weeks back & whilst a few remembered him/what he'd done he got no grief from the crowd.

This was being discussed heatedly on the Jeremy Vine show just now and he broadened it ou to consider other celbs gone bad..boy george handcuffing a sex worker to a radiator etc.One exasperated caqller towards the end of the show said -" let's see this in context there's a rich south african due to be sentenced for manslaughter .... and he'll probably walk " .........mmmmmm

Lazy cut & paste from the JO thread

A lot depends on the individual but it's always made me laugh how people react differently to each case. There have been several footballers jailed over the years for all sorts of things from assault to rape and even causing deaths each vilified to varying degrees yet all, IIRC, continued their careers. People still refer to St Ryan as the 'model professional' and a role model to follow forgetting that he'd battered one of his girlfriends in public and slept with his sister in law for 8 years.

Evans has so far IIRC failed to show any accountability or remorse. This makes him even more of a **** IMO.

Regarding him picking up his career in football ... well, if he makes a return and earns a shed load of cash (compared to the man in the street) then people will no doubt hate him even more. If he had to "retreat" in to a £16k PA job in the high street plus relative obscurity then maybe those same people would feel better.

Can't help feel that financial envy will cloud people's opinion here.

[quote=lunge ]Convicted rapist is released from prison having served [b]half[/b] his term.

aracer, he's served the term that the British justice deemed to be the right amount. Whether it's long enough is another debate altogether...

The British justice system set his term as 5 years.

aracer, and then amended it before his release.

The British justice system set his term as 5 years.

Can't help feel that financial envy will cloud people's opinion here.

+1

People don't seem to have a problem with him getting [i]a[/i] job, it's more likely that many have a problem with him getting a job that pays money they can only dream of, despite having done something wrong. They see THAT as the injustice.

As someone mentioned above, I get the feeling that life won't be easy on the pitch for a while!

We need to face up to the fact that we either build more prisons and lock up all the crims and throw away the keys or we give them the opportunity to learn from their mistakes.

but that's another argument.

There are plenty of other (less well paid) jobs that this type of conviction would rule you out of, don't see why other, shall we call them "public eye jobs", could be deemed to be inaccessible for certain convictions.

locking up people for the amount of time the justice system ... has set

is that not exactly what has happened here it's just that people don't understand that a 5 year sentence doesn't necessarily mean 5 years behind bars?

Hmm have I read [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_of_Offenders_Act_1974#Exemptions ]this[/url] (wiki content!) wrong or are the FA are allowed to stop you from [i]stewarding[/i] a game if you have a conviction - but don't mind if you're playing.

EDIT: Players have no real contact with the public at a game a steward would. Seems a reasonable ish risk assessment to me
EDIT 2 after reading link: He will have to disclose his offence to any employer - like they wont know and he will be on the sex offenders register so he will need to do this for life probably, He will also be on probation as well when released so they may prevent him working

Can't help feel that financial envy will cloud people's opinion here.

He has served his time and he should be able to return to his employment like anyone else
If you do not like it change the law.

Lee Hughes killed two people, served 5 years & returned to playing - is still playing now in the Conference. Saw him play a few weeks back & whilst a few remembered him/what he'd done he got no grief from the crowd.

Interesting. I saw him play a couple of years ago and the opposition fans chanted 'Murderer' and "It should have been you" pretty much constantly for the full 90 mins.

It wasn't pretty, and if Ched Evans goes through that twice a week for the rest of his career, he certainly won't be having it easy...

For me, the issue is that he's not only a convicted rapist who's on the Sex Offender's register indefinitely, and who has already had one appeal rejected, with a second pending. His friends and family named and abused his victim on social media

I'm obviously not saying he shouldn't be allowed to work anywhere ever again, but he shouldn't be allowed to return to a high profile position where, rightly or wrongly, he's seen as a role model (unless his conviction is completely overturned after his second appeal). Although I believe that offenders should be rehabilitated, I don't think Ched Evans has been, and also that 'rehabilitated' doesn't necessarily mean that the offender has the right to walk back into exactly the same career. By letting an unrepentant rapist back into professional football, especially one with a particularly unpleasant circle of friends, it sends out the message that the club care more about goals than they do about victims of rape.

And IIRC, employers are perfectly within their rights to choose not to employ somebody with an unspent conviction - and any conviction which resulted in a sentence of four or more years, landing on the Sex Offender's register is never spent. Could be wrong though.

In the circumstances of this particular case, I am not sure that it is quite as straightforward as saying he is unremorseful. He is still appealing his conviction, so his position is therefore that he did not commit rape. The circumstances of this particular case, as I recall, are that he and a friend both had sex with the victim. The prosecution case was that she was too drunk to consent. He was convicted, his friend was acquitted. Now of course it is far more complicated than that, and a jury heard all the evidence, but it doesn't surprise me that he is challenging his conviction, and this is a situation where I could see a challenge possibly succeeding. The new legislation covering sexual offences is sufficiently recent that relevant decisions and case law are still developing, and consent/lack of consent/ability to consent/offenders knowledge or belief regarding consent are usually the crux of a rape investigation.

I feel that organisations like football clubs, have a moral responsibility to their fans/the people who pay the wages, which should probably extend to not putting people who are on the sex offenders register in positions where teenage boys idolise them, and have their names printed on the back of their replica kits.

I do agree he's served his time, and should be allowed to take a place in society - I just don't think he should be a pin up on teenagers walls.

There are no winners in this case, and if nothing else it should demonstrate what can happen to young women who drink so much they lose all control, and are taken advantage of by scummy blokes.

Once more i agree with the great ape- this is a complicated case where they both agree [ he had an acquitted co accused] they had sex with her and it was decreed she was too drunk to consent.
One was found innocent and one was found guilty
I dont know enough to comment but they should both have the same sentence.
Some miscarriage has occurred here but i do not now if they are both innocent or both guilty.

Junkyard - lazarus
One was found innocent and one was found guilty
I dont know enough to comment but they should both have the same sentence.
Some miscarriage has occurred here but i do not now if they are both innocent or both guilty.

I think the difference is the acquitted guy met the girl and was drinking with her and they were seen getting 'friendly' before going back to his hotel.

Evans turned up at the hotel later and 'got involved'. The jury decided she hadn't (or was not in a state to) give consent to this.

doris5000 - Member
Lee Hughes killed two people, served 5 years & returned to playing - is still playing now in the Conference. Saw him play a few weeks back & whilst a few remembered him/what he'd done he got no grief from the crowd.
Interesting. I saw him play a couple of years ago and the opposition fans chanted 'Murderer' and "It should have been you" pretty much constantly for the full 90 mins.

Lifer - yes, it was along those lines, although as I recall they both had sex with her while she was in the same state. This leads on to questions regarding continuation of consent, withdrawal of consent (whether through choice or developing impairment), and also the mindset/belief - [i]mens rea[/i] - of each defendant, which is not necessarily the same, and could be why the two different verdicts were reached in this case. Rape cases are often not simple.

I definitely think there needs to be a lot of education, particularly for young men, about the consent issue.

Isn't the real question to be answered..are you happy spending money with companies/clubs that employ convicted rapists, and indeed are you haapy to continue spending money with the companies that sponsor/finance such football teams.

I was surprised at the acquittal in the trial, the judge said

"The complainant was 19 years of age and was extremely intoxicated. CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend. As the jury have found, she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse. When you arrived at the hotel, you must have realised that."

I don't know why her intoxication was a factor in Evans' case and not in the other unless the jury thought drinking with the other guy and going with him implied consent (if such a thing exists?).

I think the difference is the acquitted guy met the girl and was drinking with her and they were seen getting 'friendly' before going back to his hotel.

I definitely think there needs to be a lot of education, particularly for young men, about the consent issue

Sadly, it is at the point where their judgement is most impaired by either alcohol and hormones that they have to assess consent, and realise that even a completely pissed woman who is superficially enthusiastic may not have the capacity to give it.

I'm sure there are many hundreds of rapes every weekend under these criteria, with a much smaller number of attackers/victims who retrospectively realise the true nature of what's taken place.

I'm sure there are many hundreds of rapes every weekend under these criteria, with a much smaller number of attackers/victims who retrospectively realise the true nature of what's taken place.

I'd imagine most of them get filed by both parties as 'doing something when pissed that you later regret', because frankly, who hasn't?

You need a consent-confirming app on your phone! It probably already exists. 🙂

th prosecution submitted that the pair "targeted" her for sex after she "literally stumbled across their path" and demonstrated herself to be too intoxicated to consent. Two friends of the men were also alleged to have watched and attempted to record the act through a window.

The prosecution argued they bith raped her

I see no reason to give different sentences

The complainant stated that she had no memory of any sexual activity with either of the two men.

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

This gives a clear explanation of the events that are best read

I still do not see how they can say she consented to one but not the other tbh
Reading it though it seems pretty clear she was pissed and they took advantage of this

In simple terms, rape requires three things:-

Penetration

Lack of consent

Lack of reasonable belief that there is consent

The inference being that the jury felt that MacDonald did have a reasonable belief that she consented to him having sex with her, while Evans did not. (The course of their respective nights out, and contact with the victim, differed).