Popular Post hoaxn Posted January 8, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 8, 2015 What's the point in having a legal system and a system for the way punishments are handled if the public are going to carry out their own form of "justice". I in no way condone what he's been judged to have done. But to force him out of his profession in this way is embarrassing. If he were a sales assistant at Top Shop, would they receive the same "sanctions" and threats? Why should it be different because he's a footballer? And where does this "precedent" leave us? If I was to lose my driving licence for whatever reason, after my suspension was served, could I be facing an angry mob outside my house attempting to prevent me from using a car? 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post HanoiVillan Posted January 8, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted January 8, 2015 You know the way around that Makeminevanilla, dont rape anyone. Also regarding the threats made to Oldham employees families, I read somewhere that it didnt actually happen, once I find the link I will edit this. That is not as easy as it sounds because the definition of rape has changed and it will continue to change. (1) Once it has been established that an intoxicated woman is not in possession of full moral agency, then even if she gives consent, a court could decide she was raped. (2) Feminist groups are campaigning to broaden the definition of rape, to include cases where women agree to sex based on the assumption that the man is richer than he actually turns out to be, or makes false promises. (3) Young men need to be educated as to the reality and the big lesson to be learned from the Ched Evans case, is don't have sex with a woman who has had a drink. (4) But the safest course society can to take, is to hand the responsibility of initiating dating and sex, to women. 1 - You say this like it's a bad thing. It's a few short decades since a time when it was considered a married woman couldn't be a rape victim if her husband was the perpetrator. The definition of rape is changing all the time, and generally in a good way. Sex should be enthusiastic and consensual. 2 - The law does not suggest that people who are intoxicated have no moral agency (if you kill someone in a drunken rage, you still go to prison for murder). The law does suggest that beyond a certain point of intoxication, a person cannot give informed consent to a sexual act. This protects paralytically-drunk people from being sexually assaulted. It's a good thing. Both the jury in the original criminal trial, and the appeal court judge, felt that the woman concerned was in fact in this state of intoxication. 3 - Links please. Some evidence of this assertion. 4 - A ludicrous lesson. A better lesson would be, 'don't have sex with a woman who is already prone, doesn't know who you are and is hugely intoxicated'. Frankly I would hope everyone reading this already follows that advice. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 You know the way around that Makeminevanilla, dont rape anyone. Also regarding the threats made to Oldham employees families, I read somewhere that it didnt actually happen, once I find the link I will edit this. That is not as easy as it sounds because the definition of rape has changed and it will continue to change. (1) Once it has been established that an intoxicated woman is not in possession of full moral agency, then even if she gives consent, a court could decide she was raped. (2) Feminist groups are campaigning to broaden the definition of rape, to include cases where women agree to sex based on the assumption that the man is richer than he actually turns out to be, or makes false promises. (3) Young men need to be educated as to the reality and the big lesson to be learned from the Ched Evans case, is don't have sex with a woman who has had a drink. (4) But the safest course society can to take, is to hand the responsibility of initiating dating and sex, to women. 1 - You say this like it's a bad thing. It's a few short decades since a time when it was considered a married woman couldn't be a rape victim if her husband was the perpetrator. The definition of rape is changing all the time, and generally in a good way. Sex should be enthusiastic and consensual. 2 - The law does not suggest that people who are intoxicated have no moral agency (if you kill someone in a drunken rage, you still go to prison for murder). The law does suggest that beyond a certain point of intoxication, a person cannot give informed consent to a sexual act. This protects paralytically-drunk people from being sexually assaulted. It's a good thing. Both the jury in the original criminal trial, and the appeal court judge, felt that the woman concerned was in fact in this state of intoxication. 3 - Links please. Some evidence of this assertion. 4 - A ludicrous lesson. A better lesson would be, 'don't have sex with a woman who is already prone, doesn't know who you are and is hugely intoxicated'. Frankly I would hope everyone reading this already follows that advice. You have no intention of changing your mind and I have no intention of making an attempt. So, thanks, but no thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oaks Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I pretty much agreed with the football ramble on this 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I am wondering about the legalities of Ched Evans not being given the contract after agreeing terms due to outside influences? If they had 'failed to agree terms' then fair enough but it certainly doesn't appear like that. Effectively people like the sponsors are punishing him for a crime he had already been punished for, is that legal? Are sponsors who have publicly said if he joins we're removing our financial backing breaking the law? I'm sure everybody has a right to work, in this case is Ched being denied basic human rights? I was surprised to hear on the news earlier that an MP had written to the FA asking them to reject his registration, again, how can that be legal? He is a free man who has served the punishment given to him. I would not be surprised to see on the news at some point that he's got nothing to lose by trying to sue someone / or an organisation for the way he has been treated here when trying to rebuild his life after completing his sentence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 You know the way around that Makeminevanilla, dont rape anyone. Also regarding the threats made to Oldham employees families, I read somewhere that it didnt actually happen, once I find the link I will edit this. That is not as easy as it sounds because the definition of rape has changed and it will continue to change. (1) Once it has been established that an intoxicated woman is not in possession of full moral agency, then even if she gives consent, a court could decide she was raped. (2) Feminist groups are campaigning to broaden the definition of rape, to include cases where women agree to sex based on the assumption that the man is richer than he actually turns out to be, or makes false promises. (3) Young men need to be educated as to the reality and the big lesson to be learned from the Ched Evans case, is don't have sex with a woman who has had a drink. (4) But the safest course society can to take, is to hand the responsibility of initiating dating and sex, to women. 1 - You say this like it's a bad thing. It's a few short decades since a time when it was considered a married woman couldn't be a rape victim if her husband was the perpetrator. The definition of rape is changing all the time, and generally in a good way. Sex should be enthusiastic and consensual. 2 - The law does not suggest that people who are intoxicated have no moral agency (if you kill someone in a drunken rage, you still go to prison for murder). The law does suggest that beyond a certain point of intoxication, a person cannot give informed consent to a sexual act. This protects paralytically-drunk people from being sexually assaulted. It's a good thing. Both the jury in the original criminal trial, and the appeal court judge, felt that the woman concerned was in fact in this state of intoxication. 3 - Links please. Some evidence of this assertion. 4 - A ludicrous lesson. A better lesson would be, 'don't have sex with a woman who is already prone, doesn't know who you are and is hugely intoxicated'. Frankly I would hope everyone reading this already follows that advice. You have no intention of changing your mind and I have no intention of making an attempt. So, thanks, but no thanks! I'm genuinely scared as to which bits of what he is saying you disagree with. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMilnereatsnails Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 He is neither a free man, nor has he completed his sentence. He is out of prison under licence and will serve the remainder of his sentence under probation. Nobody is denying him his right to work, only his right to continue playing professional football. Maybe he should start thinking about an alternative career? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) My belief and to what I have read/studied about his case, is he seems to have been charged on very basic evidence. His solicitor didn't really seem very detailed in what actually happened and made many errors to support Ched's statement and as I said I think he was a public figure which the court wanted to make an example off. I always think and worry that us men who have had a one night stand, or the like, may have been in this situation or another, where we could have got in the shit through, not rape, but more regret the next day (as in this case) from the consenting female. Maybe I don't know enough to make this sort of opinion, so ofcourse take it as personal speculation rather than stating any facts. Edited January 8, 2015 by foreveryoung Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I always think and worry that us men who have had a one night stand, or the like, may have been in this situation or another, where we could have got in the shit through, not rape, but more regret the next day (as in this case) from the consenting female. I think that if you turn up at a hotel and have sex with the girl that your mate has just had sex with, uninvited by her, not having met her before and then leaving immediately afterwards then yes - you run the risk of being in 'this situation'. But then if you choose to put yourself in that situation it makes you at worst, a rapist and at the very best, a word removed of the highest order. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milfner Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Gordon Taylor just compared the case to Hillsborough. How is this man still in a job? "He wouldn’t be the first person or persons to be found guilty and maintain their innocence and then been proven right. If we’re talking about things in football we know what happened, what was alleged to have happened at Hillsborough and it’s now unravelling and we’re finding it was very different to how it was portrayed at the time, indeed by the police at the time." http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/pfa-chief-gordon-taylor-under-4944907 Classic. Edited January 8, 2015 by Milfner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 8, 2015 Moderator Share Posted January 8, 2015 I always think and worry that us men who have had a one night stand, or the like, may have been in this situation or another, where we could have got in the shit through, not rape, but more regret the next day (as in this case) from the consenting female. I think that if you turn up at a hotel and have sex with the girl that your mate has just had sex with, uninvited by her, not having met her before and then leaving immediately afterwards then yes - you run the risk of being in 'this situation'. But then if you choose to put yourself in that situation it makes you at worst, a rapist and at the very best, a word removed of the highest order. Sneaking out via the fire escape doesn't help much either. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HongKongVillan Posted January 8, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) More than happy to see him back to football if he is then in fact proven not guilty, however as of now, the facts remain the same. He is a convicted rapist, and he clearly hasn't rehabitated from what he had committed. The arguement that of Evans having served his sentence and should be given the chance- well depends how you describe a sentence, there are some crimes in the world that going in jail isn't the only punishment. There are also other consequences that one will have to endured because the said person had done something terribly wrong in the past, ie the difficulty of obtaining a high earned/profile job whatever this job entails may be one of them Yes, some here suggested the fact a rapist may not have so much difficulty in getting jobs such as being a sales assitant, obviously such job are not high profile and as long as the employer are content with. Edited January 8, 2015 by kwoktolai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) I always think and worry that us men who have had a one night stand, or the like, may have been in this situation or another, where we could have got in the shit through, not rape, but more regret the next day (as in this case) from the consenting female. I think that if you turn up at a hotel and have sex with the girl that your mate has just had sex with, uninvited by her, not having met her before and then leaving immediately afterwards then yes - you run the risk of being in 'this situation'. But then if you choose to put yourself in that situation it makes you at worst, a rapist and at the very best, a word removed of the highest order. Sneaking out via the fire escape doesn't help much either. It certainly doesn't scream to the casual observer "I've done nothing wrong here". Edited January 8, 2015 by ml1dch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 ml1dch and Trentvilla, agree but that was his crime for which he was convicted and served (is serving) a sentence. I in no way whatsoever condone what he has done and there is an argument his sentence could and should have been longer, no debate from me on that. But this is his profession and I think to continue to deny him from it means he is actually getting an ongoing / never ending sentence 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 He can get a job as a cleaner or a bin man like every other ex con. The football gravy train has passed him by and with good reason, he is no role model. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villanun Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I keep forgetting that as a professional footballer he is therefore prohibited from doing literally any other job. /sarcasm 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 8, 2015 Moderator Share Posted January 8, 2015 ml1dch and Trentvilla, agree but that was his crime for which he was convicted and served (is serving) a sentence. I in no way whatsoever condone what he has done and there is an argument his sentence could and should have been longer, no debate from me on that. But this is his profession and I think to continue to deny him from it means he is actually getting an ongoing / never ending sentence Is serving his sentence being the key part of that first line. I don't disagree with your general point in terms of the rehabilitation of ex offenders but I don't agree he should be allowed to return to the game for reasons I've already explained in previous pages of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 ml1dch and Trentvilla, agree but that was his crime for which he was convicted and served (is serving) a sentence. I in no way whatsoever condone what he has done and there is an argument his sentence could and should have been longer, no debate from me on that. But this is his profession and I think to continue to deny him from it means he is actually getting an ongoing / never ending sentence Is serving his sentence being the key part of that first line. I don't disagree with your general point in terms of the rehabilitation of ex offenders but I don't agree he should be allowed to return to the game for reasons I've already explained in previous pages of this thread. I generally agree, but with one small distinction. There should be nothing in the law of the land or the rules of the game that prohibits him from earning a living as a footballer. There isn't anything so special about the job that it requires something that says "this person is beneath kicking a ball around for a living". That decision should be left to the individual clubs as to whether they are happy to have him represent them - and I can't say I'm hugely upset that up to now, none have decided that they want to. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 8, 2015 Moderator Share Posted January 8, 2015 ml1dch and Trentvilla, agree but that was his crime for which he was convicted and served (is serving) a sentence. I in no way whatsoever condone what he has done and there is an argument his sentence could and should have been longer, no debate from me on that. But this is his profession and I think to continue to deny him from it means he is actually getting an ongoing / never ending sentence Is serving his sentence being the key part of that first line. I don't disagree with your general point in terms of the rehabilitation of ex offenders but I don't agree he should be allowed to return to the game for reasons I've already explained in previous pages of this thread. I generally agree, but with one small distinction. There should be nothing in the law of the land or the rules of the game that prohibits him from earning a living as a footballer. There isn't anything so special about the job that it requires something that says "this person is beneath kicking a ball around for a living". That decision should be left to the individual clubs as to whether they are happy to have him represent them - and I can't say I'm hugely upset that up to now, none have decided that they want to. Absolutely agree and think I've said similar previously, if I haven't I've done so elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I'm around to the school of thought that a club signing him would be morally wrong as he's in a fortunate position of influence but tweets like this are ludicrous. El Bastardo@kel_holbeck Those suggesting Ched Evans should be allowed to resurrect his football career should have no problem with Ian Watkins returning to singing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts