PDA

View Full Version : I've got a bad feeling about this



d000hg
8th January 2015, 09:07
BBC Sport - Ched Evans: Oldham hoping to complete deal for convicted rapist (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30717039)

I think the guy is being horrendously treated and should absolutely be allowed to play, but in light of the reaction every time his name is mentioned it just seems crazy he'd play for an English club, and that they would hire him.

I think someone is going to get hurt.

cojak
8th January 2015, 09:10
Somebody already has been.

stek
8th January 2015, 09:11
Will the Chaddy take to Cheddy?

vwdan
8th January 2015, 09:22
I think the guy is being horrendously treated and should absolutely be allowed to play

I think he's a convicted rapist who is still serving his sentence - balls to him.

d000hg
8th January 2015, 09:23
Somebody already has been.Glib.


I think he's a convicted rapist who is still serving his sentence - balls to him.Fair enough but not really the point - it's not HIM I'm worried about getting hurt. Football crowds are hardly the most sensible at the best of times.

FatLazyContractor
8th January 2015, 10:40
Football crowds are hardly the most sensible at the best of times.

+1.

Bloody chavs, are what they mostly are!

d000hg
8th January 2015, 10:43
+1.

Bloody chavs, are what they mostly are!And then there's the prospect of anti-rape groups (which seems an odd thing in itself IMO) organising to buy a big block of tickets in order to stage some sort of demonstration and/or disrupt the game.

MyUserName
8th January 2015, 12:13
And then there's the prospect of anti-rape groups (which seems an thing in itself IMO) organising to buy a big block of tickets in order to stage some sort of demonstration and/or disrupt the game.

Might make football worth watching.

NickyBoy
8th January 2015, 12:21
And then there's the prospect of anti-rape groups (which seems an thing in itself IMO) organising to buy a big block of tickets in order to stage some sort of demonstration and/or disrupt the game.

So what? Football is just a game. Rape is an important issue.

d000hg
8th January 2015, 12:27
So what? Football is just a game. Rape is an important issue.So what? A group of... not-your-typical-football-ground-type people, demonstrating and getting in the way of lager-swilling Eng-er-land "go out for 10 pints and a fight" fans. Still not seeing any problem - the game itself is not the point.

And well done for pointing out that "Rape is an important issue".

quackhandle
8th January 2015, 12:31
Deal off. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30727729)

qh

d000hg
8th January 2015, 12:33
Deal off. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30727729)

qhAnd yet those threatening violence to the families of those who run the club will still be claiming the moral high ground.

MyUserName
8th January 2015, 12:58
And yet those threatening violence to the families of those who run the club will still be claiming the moral high ground.

As someone once said ...



If you kick a wasp's nest, you're likely to get stung.

xoggoth
8th January 2015, 13:20
Unless the videos are faked, his conviction looks a bit dodgy to me.

Ched Evans Was Wrongly Convicted of Rape on 20th April 2012 | Ched Evans Official Website (http://www.chedevans.com/)

Obviously, if some guy jumps on an inebriated woman who hardly know what she is doing it should called rape, if she consents when sober it shouldn't, but there's a big grey area in between. In consensual sex between two similarly drunk/drugged people why should it be all the blokes fault?

BlasterBates
8th January 2015, 13:49
She accuses two guys of raping her at the same time and one is considered innocent.

Doesn't really add up.

Either they were both guilty or they were both innocent.

One of the decisions was wrong. Which one?

FatLazyContractor
8th January 2015, 14:20
Can someone give him a job before he scrounges on JSA and benefits?! :winker:

AtW
8th January 2015, 16:53
She accuses two guys of raping her at the same time and one is considered innocent.

Doesn't really add up.

Either they were both guilty or they were both innocent.

One of the decisions was wrong. Which one?

Also appeal was not allowed which is BS.

Either way if he was let out of prison then he got the right to take an honest job instead of claiming benefits.

vwdan
8th January 2015, 17:07
Also appeal was not allowed which is BS.

Either way if he was let out of prison then he got the right to take an honest job instead of claiming benefits.

He also had the right not to rape someone and employers have the right (Albeit curtailed by the Rehab of Offenders Act, which does NOT apply here because his sentence is ongoing) to factor in criminality. In addition, we the public have EVERY right to voice an opinion, concern and vote with our feet - as do the sponsors etc.

SueEllen
8th January 2015, 21:27
Also appeal was not allowed which is BS.

Either way if he was let out of prison then he got the right to take an honest job instead of claiming benefits.

He can take a job with his father-in-law.

There are well-known companies who employ ex-offenders but they won't take him because he won't admit to being guilty.

saptastic
9th January 2015, 10:55
I am abit confused by the whole case - watching QT yesterday so just picking up snippets. I might be missing something.
How can he be guilty of rape if the 'victim' can't remember whether or not she consented? And the second guy involved was not guilty.

Doggy Styles
9th January 2015, 11:14
A victory for mob rule.

saptastic
9th January 2015, 11:20
and panic from sponsors who are scared of the mob.

mudskipper
9th January 2015, 11:42
I am abit confused by the whole case - watching QT yesterday so just picking up snippets. I might be missing something.
How can he be guilty of rape if the 'victim' can't remember whether or not she consented? And the second guy involved was not guilty.

I read the appeal notes.

Seems that -

girl was drunk
She woke up in a hotel room, on her own, naked, not remembering anything and called the police.
My understanding is that she never actually accused anyone of rape - she could not remember what had happened.


So what we have got pieced together -

She stumbled across the first footballer's path, got in a taxi with him and went back to his hotel room willingly. I think this is what persuaded the jury that it could be reasonable to assume she'd consented to sex in absence of any evidence to the contrary.

First footballer texts Evans to say "I've got a bird" and he appears in the hotel room and also has sex with her.

The bit I don't get is that all this was apparently filmed through the window by two of their mates, which should help avoid doubt - haven't seen the film, don't know whether the jury did.

The summary didn't say whether Evans was drunk or not. I guess it's thought that she was sufficiently inebriated not to be able to consent to sex with Evans - I can imagine a few possible scenarios - 1) she knew what was going on and consented, 2) she was too drunk to realise the bloke ****ing her wasn't the one she'd gone back with, 3) she was semi or unconscious. There was no evidence of force, so it seems unlikely that she'd actively refused sex. I guess the jury ruled out 1 for whatever reason.

I think the fact that they did find the first bloke innocent indicates that they did consider all the evidence available and come to a reasoned conclusion (beyond reasonable doubt) about Evans.

d000hg
9th January 2015, 12:03
He also had the right not to rape someone and employers have the right (Albeit curtailed by the Rehab of Offenders Act, which does NOT apply here because his sentence is ongoing) to factor in criminality. In addition, we the public have EVERY right to voice an opinion, concern and vote with our feet - as do the sponsors etc.Employers can choose not to hire him but they WANTED to hire him, until they were effectively terrorised into changing their mind. A petition from fans saying they will not buy tickets if he's hired is quite acceptable. People who are nothing to do with the club sending threatening letters is bullying.

saptastic
9th January 2015, 12:09
Thanks for this mudskipper. As I said I dont know the full facts. On face value - It doesn't seem like the strongest conviction.

TykeMerc
9th January 2015, 12:21
This case has had so much publicity that it's irrelevant what the basis for his conviction is, odds are if on appeal he was cleared there would still be protests.

Chances that he can ever play for a UK club without people baying for blood and threatening reprisals are essentially nil. Unless people who make those anonymous threats are publicly stamped on by the authorities that will never stop and publicity concious organisations like a football club can't afford to take the risk.

d000hg
9th January 2015, 12:29
Agreed. I don't know why he doesn't just go abroad.

stek
9th January 2015, 12:37
Agreed. I don't know why he doesn't just go abroad.

He's not allowed under the terms of his release I believe.

Doggy Styles
9th January 2015, 12:38
He's not allowed under the terms of his release I believe.This. He is effectively on parole.

mudskipper
9th January 2015, 12:40
Thanks for this mudskipper. As I said I dont know the full facts. On face value - It doesn't seem like the strongest conviction.

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

This is the stuff I read - but it relates to the appeal rather than the original case.

SimonMac
9th January 2015, 12:41
BBC Sport - Ched Evans: Oldham hoping to complete deal for convicted rapist (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30717039)

I think the guy is being horrendously treated and should absolutely be allowed to play, but in light of the reaction every time his name is mentioned it just seems crazy he'd play for an English club, and that they would hire him.

I think someone is going to get hurt.


Oldham Athletic have decided against signing convicted rapist Ched Evans following threats to the club's "staff and their families".

A club director told BBC sports editor Dan Roan that a staff member was informed a named relative would be raped if the deal went ahead.

Words fail me!

d000hg
9th January 2015, 15:12
He's not allowed under the terms of his release I believe.Thanks. Maybe he would rather not play but has silly footballer size bills to pay.