Friday offtopic - Ched Evans

FoldingJoe

Lee Hughes, anybody?

tgotb

BigMat wrote:

Oh, and Eke - that situation sounds very dodgy. Girl too drunk to give consent, friends highlighted this, your only excuse being that you were also drunk. I'm sure you'd get off on evidential grounds, but still... good job she didn't change her mind the morning after!

Playing devil's advocate: What if EKE was the one who changed his mind the morning after?

Kieran_Burns

It's an interesting point and one I've seen discussed a few times (regarding consent). The conclusion I saw was that if someone is incapable of saying no and sex occurs then it can be construed as rape. Being so drunk that rational thought is not possible (to the point of being comatose or making poor decisions...) then it is beholden on the other party.

Personally if I'm that drunk I'm never going to be capable of anything beyond loud snoring.

In Eke's case (and I'm highlighting this because I do not want him to feel persecuted) she just wanted sex and was using him as much he did her (from the information given). I suppose we could argue that her senses were so befuddled wanting sex with him PROVED she was not capable of rational thought. He won no friends that night, but got a fumble out of it.

bigmat

TGOTB wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Oh, and Eke - that situation sounds very dodgy. Girl too drunk to give consent, friends highlighted this, your only excuse being that you were also drunk. I'm sure you'd get off on evidential grounds, but still... good job she didn't change her mind the morning after!

Playing devil's advocate: What if EKE was the one who changed his mind the morning after?

It should be the same situation. But the defence would probably be that by being able to "perform" he was consenting?

ugo.santalucia

It all smells like retaliation...

You can have a second chance, but as a builder or stacking shelves at Tesco... it's good we grew up with the Christian concept of "forgiveness"

Anonymous

Kieran_Burns wrote:

It's an interesting point and one I've seen discussed a few times (regarding consent). The conclusion I saw was that if someone is incapable of saying no and sex occurs then it can be construed as rape. Being so drunk that rational thought is not possible (to the point of being comatose or making poor decisions...) then it is beholden on the other party.

Personally if I'm that drunk I'm never going to be capable of anything beyond loud snoring.

In Eke's case (and I'm highlighting this because I do not want him to feel persecuted) she just wanted sex and was using him as much he did her (from the information given). I suppose we could argue that her senses were so befuddled wanting sex with him PROVED she was not capable of rational thought. He won no friends that night, but got a fumble out of it.

The thing is though, if you read the case notes - what you are describing in the 3rd paragraph, is pretty much what happened in the Chad Evans case. She was drunk (not comatose), had consentual sex with his mate and then with him. They bailed overnight so when she woke up alone in her own urine, she freaked out (short term memory loss) so called the police etc.

I am surprised the jury reached the verdict it did. I would say that the pair acted wholly unethically and certainly took advantage of her, but it doesn't sound like they 'forced' her to do anything she didn't want.

Mind you, its their word against hers.

MrSweary

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Personally if I'm that drunk I'm never going to be capable of anything beyond loud snoring.

Likewise - sadly many of my potential conquests claimed they'd have to be that drunk even to consider it..

He won no friends that night, but got a fumble out of it.

This used to be the motto of an Australian friend of mine.

CiB

Reasons why it doesn’t feel quite right as convictions for rape go for Evans to be treated as a rapist...

When Evans arrived at the hotel room and found McDonald at it with the defendant, she didn’t tell him to sling his hook but encouraged him to stay, and to join in.

She invited him to perform oral on her. I know it’s not going to be a popular opinion but if you invite a bloke to get that close & personal with one part of his anatomy, it’s a bit off retrospectively to decline permission for the natural progression; she didn’t ask him to stop at the time and was quite happy about the whole situation.

There is reference in the case notes of her subsequently sending a text message with the phrase ‘when I win big’, which suggests another motive for the events since.

The expert witness called to comment on memory loss stated what we all know; that you can be pretty drunk and be fully aware of what’s happening, but [selective] memory loss some hours after the event (i.e. waking up the following morning) is commonplace. That the latter [loss of recall] can be used to override the former [yes please, hic] to withdraw any implied or actual consent also seems wrong, to my ears – if someone is happy to partake in a normal legal activity when under the influence it’s not quite right to be allowed to undergo a change of mind a long while after the event when it’s too late to undo the actions, esp when the consequence of a change of mind is to land someone in jail.

The issue of consent being withdrawn afterwards on the basis of being too drunk to make an informed decision doesn’t sound right either. The logical conclusion of this is that physical encounters will become the same as drink-driving. If you’re over some arbitrary limit don’t do it or you could well end up in court, in the nick and ultimately in jail.

Evans hasn’t shown remorse because he doesn’t believe he’s guilty of the offence. That sounds reasonable; he was of the opinion that the events were mutually acceptable at the time and only with hindsight has consent been withdrawn, leaving him in an invidious situation. He’s right to avoid portraying signs of remorse or regret, at least until the appeal is heard.

A lot of the public debate on this brings into question his morals, as if they differ markedly from most other people’s morals. Life has moved on – much to my continual disappointment we don’t live in an Edwardian England where demure ladies giggle behind a wafted fan at gentlemen doffing their hats with a wink & a smile from their motor cars. In fact I believe the young people of today are rather keen to drink themselves into a bit of a state of a Friday & Saturday night and then ‘pull’, whatever that may be. It doesn’t seem to be much of a problem for youngsters to shove their phones down their pants and send the resulting image to their peers these days. In my day a quick ‘show us yours then’ was as far as it went tbh. Life has moved on a bit leaving some of us tutting at it in exasperation or others writing opinion pieces in the newspapers, as if their opinion has any weight at all. The defendants’ morals are not on trial.

Footballers aren’t role models if my experience – involvement with an U13s team – is any guide. Most of the kids I work with despise any player that doesn’t play for their own chosen Premier League side, and even then there are plenty of ‘their’ players that they don’t like one jot, for reasons as varied as being a perceived racist to just wearing coloured boots. Having a conviction for this sort of thing would certainly qualify a player for ‘despised status’. Very few footballers are role models – Rooney is a universal joke among the boys and parents alike. Bobby Moore and his ilk died out a while ago.

Kieran_Burns

CiB wrote:

She invited him to perform oral on her. I know it’s not going to be a popular opinion but if you invite a bloke to get that close & personal with one part of his anatomy, it’s a bit off retrospectively to decline permission for the natural progression;

Cut out most to comment on this section.

Wrong. I cannot stress this enough. Absolutely utterly wrong. Your implication is that you have no control over what happens once a particular point has been reached. This is never the case. It is everyone's right to refuse consent at any point. You may p*ss people off but it's your right to.

surrey_commuter

ugo.santalucia wrote:

In the absence of legislation that prevents a footballer with a conviction for rape to continue being a footballer it all sounds profoundly unfair if not illegal.

My understanding of the situation is that he was sacked by Sheff Utd when he got incarcerated. There is no legislation saying he can not be a footballer but he needs a club to employ him. I would have thought being on the sex offenders register and potential loss of earnings would both be good enough legal reasons not to hire him.

CiB

Kieran_Burns wrote:

CiB wrote:

She invited him to perform oral on her. I know it’s not going to be a popular opinion but if you invite a bloke to get that close & personal with one part of his anatomy, it’s a bit off retrospectively to decline permission for the natural progression;

Cut out most to comment on this section.

Wrong. I cannot stress this enough. Absolutely utterly wrong. Your implication is that you have no control over what happens once a particular point has been reached. This is never the case. It is everyone's right to refuse consent at any point. You may p*ss people off but it's your right to.

I fully agree, but the point is that acc to testimony she was quite ok with all of this at the time. It's the retrospective change of heart that I find uncomfortable.

Edit to expand on that a bit more: You're right that each person must exercise whatever control is necessary, but to go along with it with a degree of enthusiasm that only those directly involved can gauge and to withdraw consent afterwards is a bit late. Both should be in a position to stop whenever one of them says no, but it's too late to say no the following day after the event.

Ben6899

CiB wrote:

Reasons why it doesn’t feel quite right as convictions for rape go for Evans to be treated as a rapist...

When Evans arrived at the hotel room and found McDonald at it with the defendant, she didn’t tell him to sling his hook but encouraged him to stay, and to join in.

She invited him to perform oral on her. I know it’s not going to be a popular opinion but if you invite a bloke to get that close & personal with one part of his anatomy, it’s a bit off retrospectively to decline permission for the natural progression; she didn’t ask him to stop at the time and was quite happy about the whole situation.

There is reference in the case notes of her subsequently sending a text message with the phrase ‘when I win big’, which suggests another motive for the events since.

The expert witness called to comment on memory loss stated what we all know; that you can be pretty drunk and be fully aware of what’s happening, but [selective] memory loss some hours after the event (i.e. waking up the following morning) is commonplace. That the latter [loss of recall] can be used to override the former [yes please, hic] to withdraw any implied or actual consent also seems wrong, to my ears – if someone is happy to partake in a normal legal activity when under the influence it’s not quite right to be allowed to undergo a change of mind a long while after the event when it’s too late to undo the actions, esp when the consequence of a change of mind is to land someone in jail.

The issue of consent being withdrawn afterwards on the basis of being too drunk to make an informed decision doesn’t sound right either. The logical conclusion of this is that physical encounters will become the same as drink-driving. If you’re over some arbitrary limit don’t do it or you could well end up in court, in the nick and ultimately in jail.

Evans hasn’t shown remorse because he doesn’t believe he’s guilty of the offence. That sounds reasonable; he was of the opinion that the events were mutually acceptable at the time and only with hindsight has consent been withdrawn, leaving him in an invidious situation. He’s right to avoid portraying signs of remorse or regret, at least until the appeal is heard.

A lot of the public debate on this brings into question his morals, as if they differ markedly from most other people’s morals. Life has moved on – much to my continual disappointment we don’t live in an Edwardian England where demure ladies giggle behind a wafted fan at gentlemen doffing their hats with a wink & a smile from their motor cars. In fact I believe the young people of today are rather keen to drink themselves into a bit of a state of a Friday & Saturday night and then ‘pull’, whatever that may be. It doesn’t seem to be much of a problem for youngsters to shove their phones down their pants and send the resulting image to their peers these days. In my day a quick ‘show us yours then’ was as far as it went tbh. Life has moved on a bit leaving some of us tutting at it in exasperation or others writing opinion pieces in the newspapers, as if their opinion has any weight at all. The defendants’ morals are not on trial.

Footballers aren’t role models if my experience – involvement with an U13s team – is any guide. Most of the kids I work with despise any player that doesn’t play for their own chosen Premier League side, and even then there are plenty of ‘their’ players that they don’t like one jot, for reasons as varied as being a perceived racist to just wearing coloured boots. Having a conviction for this sort of thing would certainly qualify a player for ‘despised status’. Very few footballers are role models – Rooney is a universal joke among the boys and parents alike. Bobby Moore and his ilk died out a while ago.

A well-reasoned post.

dhope

CiB wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

CiB wrote:

She invited him to perform oral on her. I know it’s not going to be a popular opinion but if you invite a bloke to get that close & personal with one part of his anatomy, it’s a bit off retrospectively to decline permission for the natural progression;

Cut out most to comment on this section.

Wrong. I cannot stress this enough. Absolutely utterly wrong. Your implication is that you have no control over what happens once a particular point has been reached. This is never the case. It is everyone's right to refuse consent at any point. You may p*ss people off but it's your right to.

I fully agree, but the point is that acc to testimony she was quite ok with all of this at the time. It's the retrospective change of heart that I find uncomfortable.

Edit to expand on that a bit more: You're right that each person must exercise whatever control is necessary, but to go along with it with a degree of enthusiasm that only those directly involved can gauge and to withdraw consent afterwards is a bit late. Both should be in a position to stop whenever one of them says no, but it's too late to say no the following day after the event.

Though the account that you've mentioned is the one given by the defence. The prosecution said that she cannot remember what happened. Unless I've misread and the prosecution have accepted consentual oral sex happened, followed by rape.

rick_chasey

Broadly speaking, given we're not in the courtroom, taking the conviction at face value is a fair position to take, and I do slightly feel it's disrespectful to both parties involved to start questioning the evidence ourselves.

ugo.santalucia

Broadly speaking people are bigoted, manipulative, selfish and should get grip with the reality and the law. If you don't give ex convicts a fair second chance, you might as well send them to the death chamber and save yourself the cost of a sentence.

The outspoken heptathlete should think about training, she's been squeezing everything she could out of that medal... time to get a grip with reality and stop playing the celeb. role. Real athletes talk less and train more...

msmancunia

Oh give her a break - she only had a baby four months ago. I think she's entitled to maternity leave like everyone else.

EKE_38BPM

Too late to quote Ugo's reply, but I will say WOW!! Who rattled his cage?

I really wish I could have quoted that. It really surprised me.

ugo.santalucia

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Too late to quote Ugo's reply, but I will say WOW!! Who rattled his cage?

I really wish I could have quoted that. It really surprised me.

We are plagued by this anti-defamation policy and you can't say anything anymore on the internet... so hey oh... it was off topic anyway

EKE_38BPM

ugo.santalucia wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Too late to quote Ugo's reply, but I will say WOW!! Who rattled his cage?

I really wish I could have quoted that. It really surprised me.

We are plagued by this anti-defamation policy and you can't say anything anymore on the internet... so hey oh... it was off topic anyway

What you said was wrong. If you said it in a face to face conversation, it would be wrong. If you said it in a newspaper, it would be wrong. If you said it on TV or on the radio, it would be wrong.

Don't blame the medium, blame the message.

ugo.santalucia

EKE_38BPM wrote:

We are plagued by this anti-defamation policy and you can't say anything anymore on the internet... so hey oh... it was off topic anyway

What you said was wrong. If you said it in a face to face conversation, it would be wrong. If you said it in a newspaper, it would be wrong. If you said it on TV or on the radio, it would be wrong.

Don't blame the medium, blame the message.[/quote]

as there modern teenagers say... whatever...

CiB

dhope wrote:

Though the account that you've mentioned is the one given by the defence. The prosecution said that she cannot remember what happened. Unless I've misread and the prosecution have accepted consentual oral sex happened, followed by rape.

See this is where I think his appeal might have some grounds to succeed. Like I said earlier...

The expert witness called to comment on memory loss stated what we all know; that you can be pretty drunk and be fully aware of what’s happening, but [selective] memory loss some hours after the event (i.e. waking up the following morning) is commonplace. That the latter [loss of recall] can be used to override the former [yes please, hic] to withdraw any implied or actual consent also seems wrong, to my ears

The summary has it thus...

The expert called by the defence calculated that the complainant's likely blood-alcohol level at about 4am would have approximated to something like 2½ times the legal driving limit. He gave evidence that she would have suffered from slurred speech and unsteadiness of gait, but he would not have expected any memory loss. It was an essential part of his expert evidence that there were significant doubts about the claim made by the complainant that she had suffered a memory loss. In effect, it was suggested that her assertion was false.

I'm not convinced that the alleged degree of drunkeness was such that the victim cannot recall the events that led to her apparently consenting to engage in congress with the two defendants simultaneously. Unless she habitually takes on blokes two at a time, I'd have thought that it would be such a momentous event that she would have some recollection of the circumstances, and if not 'up for it' would have made it fairly obvious at the time that she wasn't. And putting my cynical old goat's hat on, isn't it more 'acceptable' to claim not to have a memory of it all than to lie about it, which is the clear alternative when faced with the question 'did you willingly agree...' in court? Under oath?

I'm more surprised that not having recall of the event a long while after is a valid override of the consent given at the time. That's what it hinges on as far as I can tell, and by extension whose version is most believable.

If you want a dispassionate summary of the events, it's widely available. https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-che ... dwyn-evans

CiB

Rick Chasey wrote:

Broadly speaking, given we're not in the courtroom, taking the conviction at face value is a fair position to take, and I do slightly feel it's disrespectful to both parties involved to start questioning the evidence ourselves.

No. It's not as if the British Justice system isn't littered with miscarriages of justice and verdicts being reversed on appeal. Accepting that as leave to appeal the verdict was twice refused but the Criminal Cases Review Commission is fast tracking a review, it seems that the least fair position to take is that the verdict was sound.

itboffin

I'm not prepared to read three pages of anything that associated with football but I will say

1. Football FFS really!?, there's zero good points to any of it.
2. Ched is not a bloody real name, its a wooden out building where people store bikes they'd like someone else to own.

rick_chasey

CiB wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Broadly speaking, given we're not in the courtroom, taking the conviction at face value is a fair position to take, and I do slightly feel it's disrespectful to both parties involved to start questioning the evidence ourselves.

No. It's not as if the British Justice system isn't littered with miscarriages of justice and verdicts being reversed on appeal. Accepting that as leave to appeal the verdict was twice refused but the Criminal Cases Review Commission is fast tracking a review, it seems that the least fair position to take is that the verdict was sound.

I'm not making a comment on whether it's a miscarriage of justice or not.

But you on your computer are not in a good position to be judge, and given it's an invasive process for those involved and given it can be very difficult for a lot of female victims of rape to come forward because of the way all the nasty gory details to become public consumption, (with people unfairly throwing criticism and defamation their way), I don't think it needs to be discussed like this.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... iew=Binary

Broadly with this issue, I personally think that, because of the problems with coming forward and prosecuting people for this, that a general attitude of leaving the evidence to the judge and the jury to decide would help, as opposed to acting judge on the internet.

You're sitting there talking about someone you don't know and whether they gave oral sex or not FFS.

EKE_38BPM

The little one is right. We don't know all of the facts of the case and are not in a position to judge.

I did jury service a year ago and one of the cases we heard seemed very open and shut, the defendant seemed as guilty as sin, but when we reviewed the evidence to the standard we we're required to, the defendant was found not guilty. Until and unless you have ALL of the evidence, you're not in a position to judge.

Perhaps if I had been a juror I would have thought about my own experiences and he would have' got away' with it, our perhaps one of the jurors was a rape victim asked pushed for guilty.
Either way, should he now be allowed to carry on doing his job?

Boff, hard CH like cheese or chisel.

pastryboy

Surrey Commuter wrote:

My understanding of the situation is that he was sacked by Sheff Utd when he got incarcerated.

His contract expired around the time it was all happening so there was no sacking.

First.Aspect

There are many professions where it would be difficult to continue if you are a convicted racist.

In law, for example, you are in some difficulty if you have a criminal conviction of any kind. Or the police.....

Any hint of sexual misconduct doesn't do a teaching or lecturer's career much good, much less actual rape.

Anyone in health care, again, hard to get back in if you've raped someone I would have thought.

Or social work.

Mrs Mancunia has already mentioned most of the media. Heard DLT on the radio recently?

In fact, its hard to think of many professions where you would find getting another job easy. Banking, maybe, because it exists in a moral vacuum.

Why is football any different to all of these much less well paid occupations where merely having happened to rape someone carries a stigma against future employment? That's the real question.

---

Re-trying the case on here is distasteful. Rape conviction rates are very low. It seems odd to me that there is a debate over one case where there actually has been a conviction. But most of us are blokes, aren't we, and perhaps this is why the conviction rate is so low in the first place. Well, she was asking for it.......

There's been some speculation that this only happened because he was a footballer. Again, this strikes me as a slightly ignorant male attitude to take, since it is seeking a motivation other than actually being horrified at finding out that someone's helped themselves while you were sleeping. This was a criminal lcase. She's not entitled to some vast magic windfall unless she raises a civil action. Perhaps she called the police because she felt that she had been raped, not because she felt jilted by a footballer?

If the rape conviciton is overturned on appeal, by people who actually listen to all the evidence and in a setting where there are some people competent in criminal law to manage proceedings, THEN we can have a debate. Alternatively, if he spends some time actually apologising to someone other than his girlfriend and financial advisor, again there MIGHT be some scope for rehabilitation.

But right now he is an unrepentant rapist. It really is as simple as that.

CiB

Rick Chasey wrote:

You're sitting there talking about someone you don't know and whether they gave oral sex or not FFS.

No. I'm suggesting there may be a reason why the Criminal Cases Review Panel is pushing for a fast-track on this case, rather than just accepting that because a jury has reached its conclusion there can be no other outcome as far as his guilt goes.

First Aspect wrote:

Alternatively, if he spends some time actually apologising to someone other than his girlfriend and financial advisor, again there MIGHT be some scope for rehabilitation.

But right now he is an unrepentant rapist. It really is as simple as that.

Actually he believes that what happened happened with her consent, and that what happened wasn't rape.

I reckon these two comments above plus a load of other guff that I couldn't be bothered to rehash have reminded me why it's not so much fun as it used to be, wasting time on here. Not when up-themselves admins respond like that and someone else follows up with what amounts to banning discussion of the legalities as the court has reached a satisfactory conclusion and anyone who takes an opposing view is either a 'eh up lads she was asking for it' or apparently feels that more than enough blokes are already chucked inside, let's not make sure not too many more do eh? Bollox.

ugo.santalucia

Should the discussion move on and focus on whether a convicted rapist should be allowed to play professional football, rather than questioning the conviction?
The latter is a rather pointless exercise, as there has been a trial already.

Should we as a society accept that once a sentence is served, it is all over and the person in question should be treated and given exactly the same opportunities as anybody else?
We are really denting some fundamental human rights here...

First.Aspect

CiB wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You're sitting there talking about someone you don't know and whether they gave oral sex or not FFS.

No. I'm suggesting there may be a reason why the Criminal Cases Review Panel is pushing for a fast-track on this case, rather than just accepting that because a jury has reached its conclusion there can be no other outcome as far as his guilt goes.

First Aspect wrote:

Alternatively, if he spends some time actually apologising to someone other than his girlfriend and financial advisor, again there MIGHT be some scope for rehabilitation.

But right now he is an unrepentant rapist. It really is as simple as that.

Actually he believes that what happened happened with her consent, and that what happened wasn't rape.

I reckon these two comments above plus a load of other guff that I couldn't be bothered to rehash have reminded me why it's not so much fun as it used to be, wasting time on here. Not when up-themselves admins respond like that and someone else follows up with what amounts to banning discussion of the legalities as the court has reached a satisfactory conclusion and anyone who takes an opposing view is either a 'eh up lads she was asking for it' or apparently feels that more than enough blokes are already chucked inside, let's not make sure not too many more do eh? Bollox.

Calm down, no one's locked the thread yet.

What he believes isn't necessarily relevant I don't think. On the face of it, it seems that he *believed* that he had consent, but was wrong in law. People who have sex whilst drunk aren't routinely convicted of rape, or no one would every graduate from university, so one has to assume that there are some other relevant factors at play here. Its tempting to hear pockets of information about the case and think, surely that can't be rape. Most probably what you have in your mind wouldn't be rape. But by projecting that onto the circumstances of this case, I would say you are at risk of inadvertantly defending something which really is rape.

He was innocent until proven guilty before the original trial, but right now he's guilty until proved innocent. It is not unreasonable for employers to regard him as such.

My understanding is that his case has been fast-tracked because his career of choice is an unusually short one and he would be unduly prejudiced by any delay in the court process, that's all. Nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of an appeal. The next step will be to determine whether there are any grounds for appeal, which is not a given. He can't just say, I want another stab at this please, you know.