Friday offtopic - Ched Evans

DonDaddyD

jedster wrote:

Let's be clear what the real issue about him and Sheffield United is and what it isn't. Few people are arguing that their should be a legal ban on him playing professional football. The main argument goes like this:

a) CE is a scumbag
b) Companies / businesses / clubs who value their reputation should avoid employing and associating themselves with scumbags

I understand that reasonable people can disagree whether CE committed rape according to the strict legal definition.

Sensible organisations should not associate themselves with scumbags.

Simple as that.

Ryan Giggs, John Terry, Patrick Kluivert (killed a person), the entire Liverpool 'Spice Boys' team. Van Persie, Joey Barton, Wayne Rooney.

If a precedent needs to be set then it needs to be set. But one man should not be made example of in the name of justice, it needs to be consistent.

jedster wrote:

I don't think there is much scope for disagreement that when a strong man enters a hotel room where a woman is already drunk and naked with another man, and she has not clearly agreed to him joining them in advance he is taking massive liberties and needs to be cast iron sure that she is really consenting and fit to consent. I totally see why a jury might conclude that he had not done nearly enough to make sure she was consenting and by implication that he really didn't care whether she was in fact consenting. This lack of care and the fact that they left her so drunk and ill that they mentioned she might be in danger to the hotel staff proves that he is a scumbag.

This is your perception of it. But being a scumbag doesn't mean he is guilty and the depth of quality a person has as a human being appears to hold very little sway over their footballing prowess or the value we place in that footballing prowess. I would mention players from other nations but as they have different laws around sex, consent, infidelity etc it's almost pointless. Your assertion of scumbag is subjective. Others would say victim

From the self named [CE] website:

"As this case revolves around the issue of intoxication and consent, it should be noted that it is established in the case of R V Bree that drunken consent to sexual intercourse is nevertheless consent in the eyes of the law.

This does not mean that if a person is unconscious through drink or drugs it is acceptable to have sex with that person but rather, where an intoxicated person is functioning and able to make conscious decisions at the time of intercourse and then subsequently regrets that decision and decides to make a complaint of rape, her self-inflicted intoxication ought not to be considered as relevant to the issue of consent."

She wasn't unconscious, she just had no memory of the previous night (even that memory loss is questioned). So I'm left questioning how did he rape her? I'm not even sure why both men were even charged with rape?

She wasn't unconscious, he didn't force himself on her and its unclear whether at any point he was in room she said "no I don't want to" and he did anyway. And if she did say "no" how does she remember if she suffered alcohol induced memory loss?

So while his sexual exploits may be questionable - I've known far more filthy exploits - I'm going to reserve judgement on even calling this man a scumbag, until after his appeal is heard because I genuinely think this needs a retrial.

jedster wrote:

Secondly, the girl has gone into hiding and been given a new identity because of threats and harassment by his supporters. What has he done to try to call off the dogs? Nothing. Second proof that he is a scumbag.

To play devils advocate, she admits or is proven to have lied? Suddenly the harassment may seem somewhat more justified.

CiB

DonDaddyD wrote:

And if she did say "no" how does she remember if she suffered alcohol induced memory loss?

From the case notes...

A Doctor wrote:

The fact that she has no memory of events does not mean that she was not able to participate in a meaningful way in events at that time, and I am quite clear that this includes the ability to make informed decisions in relation to consent. Acute alcohol intoxication may lead to substantial disinhibition and that may in itself lead to unwise judgments being made. But the fact that she does no longer remember having made a decision is a failure of the memory process and not of the decision-making process. Evidence of memory loss as a result of anterior-grade amnesia does not in itself prove that she lacked the capacity to consent.

bigmat

Why do people keep quoting CE's defence team and presenting it as gospel? He was found guilty. There are all sorts of things we don't know that the jury will have taken into consideration. Why do people find it so hard to believe he was actually guilty? Anyway, I thought the point of this thread was to consider whether somebody guilty of the offence he has been found guilty of should be "allowed" to play football again. This whole debate as to whether or not he is actually a rapist is really unpleasant and some of the comments above I find a bit disappointing and not what I would expect from what is normally quite a sensible forum.

CiB

That's not CE's defence, that's an expert witness casting doubt on the basis of the conviction, and if there's no conviction this bloke isn't guilty of anything and the question of whether he should be allowed to play football becomes moot. Seems quite relevant.

I'm not bothered if he is or isn't tbh. I'm more interested in how such a tiny sway of evidence or belief on the part of one party or the other in a case like this can have such a massive impact on someone's life.

Should he play football again then? As you're quite desperate to stick to that and not wander off down tangential alleyways, here's my view: yes, he should be allowed. It's up to his employers to make that decision. Were it not for a tiny difference of opinion on a key part of the case though it wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

bigmat

CiB wrote:

That's not CE's defence, that's an expert witness casting doubt on the basis of the conviction, and if there's no conviction this bloke isn't guilty of anything and the question of whether he should be allowed to play football becomes moot. Seems quite relevant.

I'm not bothered if he is or isn't tbh. I'm more interested in how such a tiny sway of evidence or belief on the part of one party or the other in a case like this can have such a massive impact on someone's life.

Should he play football again then? As you're quite desperate to stick to that and not wander off down tangential alleyways, here's my view: yes, he should be allowed. It's up to his employers to make that decision. Were it not for a tiny difference of opinion on a key part of the case though it wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

Maybe I got the criminal process wrong - wouldn't each party have their own expert, with the jury left to decide which one's evidence it preferred? It isn't clear (to me) who that toxicology expert was instructed by - I confess I assumed it was by the defence.

I think we actually agree on the point that the thread was originally about anyway - hurrah!

surrey_commuter

He is allowed to play football!!! saying he is not implies that the football authorities have banned him. His problem is that no football club wants to employ him... does anybody believe they should be forced to employ him. His contract with Sheff Utd expired soon after he went to jail so he is not their responsibility.

MrSweary

CiB wrote:

Should he play football again then? As you're quite desperate to stick to that and not wander off down tangential alleyways, here's my view: yes, he should be allowed. It's up to his employers to make that decision.

Is he actually employed by anyone - I thought not?

BigMat wrote:

This whole debate as to whether or not he is actually a rapist is really unpleasant and some of the comments above I find a bit disappointing and not what I would expect from what is normally quite a sensible forum.

I tend to agree.

surrey_commuter

MrSweary wrote:

CiB wrote:

Should he play football again then? As you're quite desperate to stick to that and not wander off down tangential alleyways, here's my view: yes, he should be allowed. It's up to his employers to make that decision.

Is he actually employed by anyone - I thought not?

He has no employer and is not banned from playing football. This is not pedantry as it means that he would have to use employment law to sue for discrimination or "the authorities" would have to order somebody to employ him and presumably pick him

CiB

BigMat wrote:

wouldn't each party have their own expert, with the jury left to decide which one's evidence it preferred?

Yes it, would, but I wasn't picking evidence apart, I was referring to [supposed] expert testimony.

MrSweary wrote:

Is he actually employed by anyone - I thought not?

Sorry. I missed the word 'potential' out. Whoa.

BigMat wrote:

This whole debate as to whether or not he is actually a rapist is really unpleasant and some of the comments above I find a bit disappointing and not what I would expect from what is normally quite a sensible forum.

Yeah. It must be a right disappointment to encounter people who don't toe the line and dare to take a different viewpoint.

Surrey Commuter wrote:

He has no employer and is not banned from playing football. This is not pedantry as it means that he would have to use employment law to sue for discrimination or "the authorities" would have to order somebody to employ him and presumably pick him

It is pedantry really. He can't play football professionally without an employer, potential or otherwise.

I see where this is going; and knew I should I stayed out rather than create a world first by actually agreeing with something DDD posted. :roll:

DonDaddyD

CiB wrote:

I see where this is going; and knew I should I stayed out rather than create a world first by actually agreeing with something DDD posted. :roll:

Oi!

Interestingly, my resolve on this issue was tested this morning by LBC, which was discussing Malky Mackay, and it got me questioning whether I'm wrong.

You see my view that CE should be allowed to play again is rooted in the fact that I'm not sure he actually did it. It's not clear to me when or even how the rape occurred.

Malky Mackay however, whose mindset has been categorically proven, no I wouldn't want him as a my manager. I wouldn't feel comfortable working. (Same with Di Canio)

And that's what is so difficult with the CE situation, if it was clearly proven that he was a rapist - then no I really could care less if all he could become was a bin man. Would I want to play, manage or support a convicted rapist, no. Hell, I'd struggle to support John Terry or Ryan Giggs - dirty f*ckers they are.

Having said that, football is littered with guys who have criminal charges/records and many more with questionable morals. It's not a profession that is required to have a CRB/DBS check - so legally speaking I don't think its possible to prevent him from playing professional football again.

MrSweary

CiB wrote:

MrSweary wrote:

Is he actually employed by anyone - I thought not?

Sorry. I missed the word 'potential' out. Whoa.

It isn't an unimportant point. So far his rights haven't been impinged. He is free to seek employment. He is perfectly allowed to play football. What you seem to be arguing for is that the court of public opinion cease to exist alongside the commercial considerations potential employers. This is pie in the sky.

As it stands actions have consequences. 'Fairness' simply doesn't come in to it - no matter how much it should.

CiB wrote:

BigMat wrote:

This whole debate as to whether or not he is actually a rapist is really unpleasant and some of the comments above I find a bit disappointing and not what I would expect from what is normally quite a sensible forum.

Yeah. It must be a right disappointment to encounter people who don't toe the line and dare to take a different viewpoint.

I think you've missed the point of that statement entirely - I'm not even sure it was directed at you.

DonDaddyD

Ched Evans: Wales footballer's rape conviction quashed

SO turns out that the jury, judge and the many others may (but more than likely) have been wrong about Ched.

Looks it was right (irrespective of verdict) to question this conviction (despite being shouted down).

I have to ask:

Of those who were writing him off as a scumbag, do they now miraculously commit a U-turn and welcome him back into societal's open arms? Does Jessica Enis back track/still stand down should Sheffield Utd try and resign him? Should he be taken off footballs blacklist and be allowed to play football again? Can any statement along the lines of "sorry Ched, was wrong about you" be seen as genuine given the absolute certainty that many had that he was a rapist.

Flame away.

tangled_metal

Going to retrial. Doesn't that mean it's the trial that was not conducted right leading to an unsafe conviction. It doesn't say anything about guilt or innocence. Basically it will need a new trial to decide guilt or innocence under the law. Whether that will happen is to be decided I believe.

Either way it's too early to claim his innocence or to call out his detractors. Besides there are some who still feel that irrespective of criminal guilt his behaviour should earn him sanction within professional sport. He is far from innocent of poor judgement, low morals/ethics and some might claim shows a lack of respect for others. Add to that the harassment from his.supporters towards the woman victim. Yes she's a victim irrespective of his guilt.

dhope

Indeed. Justice Hallett has said that they heard new evidence. There is no suggestion that, based on what was presented at the time, the original verdict was unsafe.

He still sounds like a scumbag. Either he cheated on his pregnant partner or he raped someone.

On the rest, I don't think he'll be welcomed anywhere with open arms. Would you invite him to your daughter's 16th?!

bendertherobot

Well, it works both ways. He was guilty, so commenting on that and taking action on it was fair enough. Now he's innocent, so claiming that it proves nothing about his innocence is incorrect. He's innocent again now.

bigmat

Innocent until proven guilty, the guilty verdict has been set aside so he's innocent (of rape) - for the time being. Still a scumbag though.

tangled_metal

Technically there's no innocence or guilt with this verdict. It's a decision on whether new evidence could have affected the results of the trial. The verdict came back with the answer that it might. Result there needs to be a retrial to allow all evidence (original and new) to be considered. AFAIK this just means his conviction is not held. If you want to claim innocence there's a good reason and in the new trial (if it happens) he'll be prosecuted afresh which means innocent until proven guilty.

However, with this as with the rest of life we are all being judged by our actions. People will always assign guilt or innocence according to the actions of an individual. I personally view him as an individual with low moral standards. I'm kind of judgmental like that. I do believe that at best he's cheated on his partner with a woman who was possibly not in a fit state to have given consent. I have judged him on the reported actions that is not in question. Whilst it is no longer proven to be criminal it is highly questionable morally IMO. I feel that is justification for a football fan, such as J. Ennis, to not want him associated with the club they support. Just as I would not want to know him, had he been a friend I'd simply no longer view him as such. Fortunately I never knew him and never will.

DonDaddyD

Tangled Metal wrote:

However, with this as with the rest of life we are all being judged by our actions. People will always assign guilt or innocence according to the actions of an individual. I personally view him as an individual with low moral standards. I'm kind of judgmental like that. I do believe that at best he's cheated on his partner with a woman who was possibly not in a fit state to have given consent. I have judged him on the reported actions that is not in question. Whilst it is no longer proven to be criminal it is highly questionable morally IMO. I feel that is justification for a football fan, such as J. Ennis, to not want him associated with the club they support. Just as I would not want to know him, had he been a friend I'd simply no longer view him as such. Fortunately I never knew him and never will.

Interesting that the mother of his child has not judged him as you have and stood by him.

I don't know the man personally, I don't know what kind of arrangement he has with his wife. Everyone loved Ryan Giggs, believed him a role model and imagined he would be the ideal best mate, right until (towards the end of his 20 year playing career) we found out he was flipping off his brother's wife. Muhammad Ali dazzled the world and cheated on just about all his wives. The point, as much as we like to think we do, we do not know these people personally. It's not our place to judge them personally, we do not know the circumstances of their personal lives. Our only concern should be whether their actions are legal or not. In this instance Ched Evans is (once again) innocent.

rick_chasey

Any particular reason why you're so interested in this case DDD?

veronese68

DonDaddyD wrote:

Of those who were writing him off as a scumbag, do they now miraculously commit a U-turn and welcome him back into societal's open arms?

No, he's still a scumbag.
You're right, we don't know the arrangement he had with his wife. But to me and most other people it's still a terrible way to behave and socially unacceptable.
Whatever happens in the retrial we will never know for sure as unfortunately innocent people are sometimes found guilty or the guilty walk free.

tangled_metal

The point I'm making is you can make your own judgements on this guy independent of court decisions. We don't know his relationship with his wife, that's true but it also doesn't matter. We are you judging him against our own personal morals. I would not do that so as far as I care anyone who does is wrong.

Cases like this give us a kind of space to discuss morals, rights and wrongs, etc of a situation. It's natural and right. It is also how as a society we can move on. By discussion of situations that are on the borderline or limit of what some see as acceptable you can develop boundaries in society. Although perhaps this is not acceptable but an individual's decision which is acceptable. Perhaps, like me, you feel it's not acceptable for several reasons.

It's all good to discuss but this legal event does not suddenly make everything and the guy OK. Those posting criticisms don't have to eat their words since it's still a moral and societal issue that an opinion can be held on.

BTW DDD are you a fan of his from his playing days? Are you a fan of his old club? Do you want to see him back playing their?

jds_1981

Still in time for Friday - bump

pblakeney

Not guilty.
Just as well we don't still have a death sentence. Anyone want to retract earlier statements?

bigmat

PBlakeney wrote:

Not guilty.
Just as well we don't still have a death sentence. Anyone want to retract earlier statements?

Not sure rape was ever a hanging offence was it? [edit: abolished in 1841] Still think he's a scumbag, but apparently not a rapist. Re the resurrection of his glorious sporting career, if he ends up at my team I'll stop supporting them. Not sure much has changed there really.

pblakeney

BigMat wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Not guilty.
Just as well we don't still have a death sentence. Anyone want to retract earlier statements?

Not sure rape was ever a hanging offence was it? [edit: abolished in 1841] Still think he's a scumbag, but apparently not a rapist. Re the resurrection of his glorious sporting career, if he ends up at my team I'll stop supporting them. Not sure much has changed there really.

That is a moral judgement, not a legal one. There are drivers who think cyclists should be jailed for holding up traffic. Everyone has different morals. They can't all be applied.

bigmat

PBlakeney wrote:

BigMat wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Not guilty.
Just as well we don't still have a death sentence. Anyone want to retract earlier statements?

Not sure rape was ever a hanging offence was it? [edit: abolished in 1841] Still think he's a scumbag, but apparently not a rapist. Re the resurrection of his glorious sporting career, if he ends up at my team I'll stop supporting them. Not sure much has changed there really.

That is a moral judgement, not a legal one. There are drivers who think cyclists should be jailed for holding up traffic. Everyone has different morals. They can't all be applied.

Which earlier statements do you want people to retract as most if not all acknowledged they were making moral judgments?

ilovegrace

BigMat wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Not guilty.
Just as well we don't still have a death sentence. Anyone want to retract earlier statements?

Not sure rape was ever a hanging offence was it? [edit: abolished in 1841] Still think he's a scumbag, but apparently not a rapist. Re the resurrection of his glorious sporting career, if he ends up at my team I'll stop supporting them. Not sure much has changed there really.

So you would not support a football team if it had scumbags playing for them , hhhmmm interesting.
regards
ILG

Irohug5

ilovegrace wrote:

BigMat wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Not guilty.
Just as well we don't still have a death sentence. Anyone want to retract earlier statements?

Not sure rape was ever a hanging offence was it? [edit: abolished in 1841] Still think he's a scumbag, but apparently not a rapist. Re the resurrection of his glorious sporting career, if he ends up at my team I'll stop supporting them. Not sure much has changed there really.

So you would not support a football team if it had scumbags playing for them , hhhmmm interesting.
regards
ILG

Rules out pretty much all football teams then.

pblakeney

BigMat wrote:

Which earlier statements do you want people to retract as most if not all acknowledged they were making moral judgments?

Fair point. A case of thread confusion. :oops:
I'm sure a few would have been happy with corporal punishment following the initial verdict though.

cookeeemonster

You need to read up on the case, the judge made some shocking decisions.

We are officially back in the 80's....heading towards the 50's.

Thank f**k I don't have any daughters.