Ched Evans

[Stu_2]

The joke was still funny, by the way

 

[Max Power]

The whole thing perplexes me.
Girl of dubious morals heads off to hotel with man she has never seen before in her life. Mans friend returns to hotel and joins in the fun. Mother (who must be really proud) turns up the next morning to collect her daughter, who then decides to blame them both for raping her. :shock: One of them is guilty and the other one isn't :?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Yes, a lady journalist on Question Time made that point. How was she sober enough to consent to one and too drunk to consent to the other? Just think - it could have been a whole team. Just imagine - yes she was sober enough for the first eight, but definitely too drunk for the last three... where is the line drawn? I used to work in a hotel where a local woman (not unattractive) used to come in specially if she knew there was a rugby club in in order to take the lot on. We threw her out regularly. These things do happen.

 

[DiscoStu]

I did a bit of reading and it seems that she was very drunk but got into a taxi with the first guy. They went to a hotel and had sex. The guy txt Ched who then came over and had sex. So it could probably be argued that she consented with the first guy but not with Ched.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Certainly - but it's the "drunkenness" that muddies the water. She was either sober enough to consent or she wasn't. She didn't get drunk in between the two of them.
The thing that amazed me was that his girlfriend's father is picking up his legal bills - if my daughter's boyfriend treated her that way I'd hire a hit man not a solicitor.

 

[MIGNAL]

I did a bit of reading and it seems that she was very drunk but got into a taxi with the first guy. They went to a hotel and had sex. The guy txt Ched who then came over and had sex. So it could probably be argued that she consented with the first guy but not with Ched.

Maybe but both of them stated that she consented, although each gave conflicting evidence over this i.e. who said what. Of course that is their version. She couldn't remember. Other than that there is no evidence either way. All three were in the same room at the same time. The conviction relies on her being too drunk to consent. I'm not even sure that a rape complaint was made. How could it, if she couldn't remember anything? I think the initial complaint was of a stolen handbag IIRC.

 

[Steve Maskery]

I've been very reluctant to add to this thread, not least becasue I don't see how any of us could know exactly what happened or why the court came to the verdict itself.

But.

Being a footballer is not just any old job. It is, by any measure, a glamorous role-model job. As a top-class footballer you are adored by young and impressionable people. Boys. That gives you responsibilities as well as privileges.

Under the law as it stands he is a convicted rapist, and even if, as I am quite happy to consider, the conviction is flawed, it seems wrong to me that he can just carry on in that very privileged role as if nothing has happened. He has not served his time, he has served only half of it.

I understand that he is appealing against his conviction. In a way I hope it is overturned and then we shall all say, quite rightly, what a terrible miscarriage of justice it has been. But until then I think that the law should be respected, with all its flaws (and I am no proponent of the infallibility of the court system, I can assure you).

Sure, he should be allowed to work. But football is not work.

Je suis Charlie aussi

 

[MIGNAL]

It isn't work for yourself. For footballers it is. It's their means of earning a living, part of the entertainment industry. Not that much different to TV personalities and famous musicians. There's even a very small minority who really don't like football at all, they do it because they happen to be good at it.
To be honest I'd rather have him out there on a football pitch, as opposed to being a Plumber in my house and my young female relative. :shock:

 

[Stu_2]

Sorry Steve, most of today's footballists are not role models. If they were, we'd all be falling down every 2 minutes, wrapping our cars in camo film, and biting each other.

 

[finneyb]

Sorry Steve, most of today's footballists are not role models. If they were, we'd all be falling down every 2 minutes, wrapping our cars in camo film, and biting each other.

I am sure these so called ' professional ' footballers are role models to school kids. Sad I know, but unfortunately they are easier to influence, particularly if parenting skills are absent for some reason.

Brian

 

[nanscombe]

But does the role modelling come from what they are doing on the pitch or from their off pitch exploits which make the papers and / or advertising roles via sponsorship?

How many footballers just go out on the pitch, give it their all, yet remain reasonably unknown?

 

[finneyb]

I would say all three, the way they conduct themselves on the pitch, their private lives which is publicised and their advertising. They are paid for advertising precisely because they are considered role models with the ability to influence.

When sponsors threaten to pull-out from Oldham its because they don't want to be associated - it would be bad for their image and therefore their bottom line.

Brian

 

[gregmcateer]

...The girl in question came out of that shop and met Evan's friend in a taxi rank (Evans was not present). The girl went to the hotel with the friend and Evans appeared sometime later.
Why was she too drunk and unable to give consent to Evans but perfectly fine to give consent to his friend? Remember that his friend was found not Guilty. It doesn't seem logical at all. Either both should be found Guilty or both innocent.

That I can certainly believe. Drunkenness can vary over time - I've had evenings where I have missed complete sections of it, yet was 'fine' earlier and then later. She could of course have consumed alcohol and / or drugs with the other guy and subsequently got worse. And even if she didn't, if she consented to one and not the other, then one has raped her.

None of us know the absolute facts and unless we were in court, we never will, so all we can do is surmise, based on our values and behaviours.

I remember the Jodie Foster film, 'The Accused' which really opened my eyes as to how difficult it is to prove rape. Disturbing film, but worth a watch.

Having said the above, although I have very little respect for what seem to be the majority of higher level footballers, once time is served according to our laws, then one should be permitted to earn a living, whatever the crime.

IMHO, obvs

 

[jpt]

...The girl in question came out of that shop and met Evan's friend in a taxi rank (Evans was not present). The girl went to the hotel with the friend and Evans appeared sometime later.
Why was she too drunk and unable to give consent to Evans but perfectly fine to give consent to his friend? Remember that his friend was found not Guilty. It doesn't seem logical at all. Either both should be found Guilty or both innocent.

That I can certainly believe. Drunkenness can vary over time - I've had evenings where I have missed complete sections of it, yet was 'fine' earlier and then later. She could of course have consumed alcohol and / or drugs with the other guy and subsequently got worse. And even if she didn't, if she consented to one and not the other, then one has raped her.

None of us know the absolute facts and unless we were in court, we never will, so all we can do is surmise, based on our values and behaviours.

I remember the Jodie Foster film, 'The Accused' which really opened my eyes as to how difficult it is to prove rape. Disturbing film, but worth a watch.

Having said the above, although I have very little respect for what seem to be the majority of higher level footballers, once time is served according to our laws, then one should be permitted to earn a living, whatever the crime.

IMHO, obvs

Not having a go at you just using your post as an example of what has been said by a few on this thread and elsewhere.

So if a convicted paedophile has served his time he should be allowed to go back to teaching children unsupervised?

Yes I know it is an extreme example but it is an example of whatever the crime, also would you let an accountant who was jailed for embezzlement from his clients look after your money once he has served his time?

john

 

[finneyb]

' once time is served according to our laws, then one should be permitted to earn a living, whatever the crime. '

Disagree. It is in the employers gift whether he continues to earn a living he does not have any right to a job - a conviction at this level is gross misconduct. Clearly, both Sheffield and Oldham consider him to be more of a liability than an asset they are after all just businesses wanting to make a profit.

I would expect other employers to consider the effect on their workforce, esp the female side of the workforce in any decision to re-employ him, as well as their business reputation - given the low standard of management in UK soccer it probably never occurred to them in this case.

Brian.

 

[nanscombe]

The crime of Ched Evans probably had less to do with their decision than the loss of sponsorship.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

+1. Income is far more important than image.

 

[bugbear]

+1. Income is far more important than image.

But the judgement of the customers of the sponsors turns one into the other.

BugBear

 

[gregmcateer]

Having said the above, although I have very little respect for what seem to be the majority of higher level footballers, once time is served according to our laws, then one should be permitted to earn a living, whatever the crime.
IMHO, obvs

Not having a go at you just using your post as an example of what has been said by a few on this thread and elsewhere.

So if a convicted paedophile has served his time he should be allowed to go back to teaching children unsupervised?

Yes I know it is an extreme example but it is an example of whatever the crime, also would you let an accountant who was jailed for embezzlement from his clients look after your money once he has served his time?

john

No problem with your comment at all, John - I'm not sure what I think about this horrible case.

I am certainly NOT saying that I think he SHOULD be allowed to be a well-paid footballer with associated public image, etc. What I meant, (and may not have expressed very clearly), is that within our legal system, once time is served, the criminal is permitted to work, etc. If they are not permitted, then they will be a burden on the state AND may also turn to crime to live.

That does not mean I agree with Evans being a footballer again - from the limited amount I have read and heard, he is a selfish, thoughtless scumbag. Rape is rape, however drunk the vistom may be - if she doesn't even remember him, then IMHO she can hardly have consented to him ****ing her. (I am sure all would agree 'making love' would not be an appropriate term in this instance).

Re your two specific queries:

So if a convicted paedophile has served his time he should be allowed to go back to teaching children unsupervised?

Yes I know it is an extreme example but it is an example of whatever the crime, also would you let an accountant who was jailed for embezzlement from his clients look after your money once he has served his time?

john

No, certainly not. However, both these examples relate the crime to the line of work. No matter how much we may find Evans a scumbag, playing football, (even at high profile club level), is not the same as him being for example, a masseur or physiotherapist.

I have no sympathy at all for the guy - he gives anyone to whom he is associated, plus potentially men, a bad name. Maybe stick him in a menial factory job for 14 hours a day for the rest of his life...