Question(s) of the Day 20/11/2014

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3710]

 

The issue there is that his mate was having sex with her first and then he joined in. The prosecution said that she was too drunk to give consent to Evans, yet the question is why wasn't she too drunk to consent to his mate? By the time Evans arrived she hadn't drank any more and so if anything she could have been more sober to give consent.

 

 

Tell you what you keep defending a convicted rapist.

[Alex 34100]

 

I don't believe there's any evidence to suggest that though.

What's the evidence to suggest she was more awake / sober then? And why did the jury ignore that and why didn't Evans' expensive lawyer seize upon that?

Edited November 20, 2014 by Alex

[Alex 34100]

 

He released a fucking video.

Wanted locking up for the shirt / tie combo in it tbh.

[Andrew 4650]

Holding up his conviction by the courts with one hand while palming off his right to return to work that same system has deemed fair having served the sentence that court handed down.

 

You can't have one without the other.

[ewerk 29492]

 

Not having that sorry. He released a fucking video. Want to avoid controversy? Have your lawyer release a dry statement saying that you just want to get your life back on track, he needn't say anything about his belief that he's innocent, especially when it appears his defence is that having sex with a girl is ok as long as she's consented to your mate.

 

Not sure why you're defending his stupid decisions? Unless you're just doing it through boredom?

 

That wasn't his defence though, his defence was that she clearly consented.

 

As I said, I think the case could have gone either way, it wasn't a cut and dry 'attack' that people envisage when we mention rape. It's completely based on one side's word against the other that she wasn't capable of consent. The tape released was clearly a shot in the PR war, a war that he was never going to win but as I said, if he is innocent then I imagine he has spent the last few years dying to get his side of the story out there.

[The Fish 10430]

Wanted locking up for the shirt / tie combo in it tbh.

 

Preach \o/

[NJS 4256]

I thought I'd read she was unconcious but read a bit more and there's no evidence of that. I think the jury took implief consent for his mate by her going back to the hotel with him which I think is a stretch. That argument didn't work for Mike Tyson.

 

The debate I think is between a drunken shag or a predator knowing she was beyond consent. I'd instinctively say if he thought she was that pissed he'd get away with it then he's a cunt.

[Alex 34100]

Holding up his conviction by the courts with one hand while palming off his right to return to work that same system has deemed fair having served the sentence that court handed down.

 

You can't have one without the other.

Since when does rehabilitation equate to being able to walk straight into your old job after serving time for a very serious crime? I have some mixed feelings about it tbh but it's not as black and white as you're suggesting. Also, the court handed down a five year sentence and he served half of that despite showing no contrition. I don't see how that's just.

[ewerk 29492]

What's the evidence to suggest she was more awake / sober then? And why did the jury ignore that and why didn't Evans' expensive lawyer seize upon that?

 

This is the tricky thing with consent and a problem that exists in law. Where's the evidence to prove that she consented? Where's the evidence to prove that she was passed out. As I've said, it could have gone another way. I'm not saying that I'm convinced his innocent, I'm just not sure that there was enough evidence to convict. Though clearly a jury believed that there was.

[Alex 34100]

 

This is the tricky thing with consent and a problem that exists in law. Where's the evidence to prove that she consented? Where's the evidence to prove that she was passed out. As I've said, it could have gone another way. I'm not saying that I'm convinced his innocent, I'm just not sure that there was enough evidence to convict. Though clearly a jury believed that there was.

I agree with you. It's difficult to make a proper judgement without sat through all the evidence in something like this, which is obviously more nuanced than some cases of rape.

[Noelie 103]

How many soccer players have been accused of rape?

How many have been convicted?

How many have spent time inside?

How many have been crucified by the media?

How many have been crucified by the public?

Surely if you do the crime, and serve the time, you should be able to pick up the pieces and get on with your life as best you can.

[NJS 4256]

This thing about it being any other job and he'd have no issues is bollocks. A criminal conviction of any kind would stop me from working anywhere decent. That might not be right but it's reality.

[The Fish 10430]

Holding up his conviction by the courts with one hand while palming off his right to return to work that same system has deemed fair having served the sentence that court handed down.

 

You can't have one without the other.

Don't think anyone's suggested that?

 

 

That wasn't his defence though, his defence was that she clearly consented.

 

As I said, I think the case could have gone either way, it wasn't a cut and dry 'attack' that people envisage when we mention rape. It's completely based on one side's word against the other that she wasn't capable of consent. The tape released was clearly a shot in the PR war, a war that he was never going to win but as I said, if he is innocent then I imagine he has spent the last few years dying to get his side of the story out there.

 

Again, it's not about his guilt or innocence, as with so many famous people these days, it's the appearance. You know when you scream from the rooftops? when you're proven right. Not before. Before you just look like a bitter, guilty rapist. Releasing that video, Approaching Sheff Utd (or accepting their approach), releasing a second video was always going to invite a shitstorm and anybody with half a brain would have told him that.

 

He's a convicted rapist that hasn't served all 5 years of his sentence, he should be permitted to attempt rehabilitation, however given the nature of the crime he's been convicted of and the nature of celebrity culture in this country, he should be far more aware of the ramifications of his decisions.

Edited November 20, 2014 by The Fish

[Alex 34100]

I think it's difficult to blame Evans for accepting the offer from the club. That one's on Sheffield United.

[The Fish 10430]

I think it's difficult to blame Evans for accepting the offer from the club. That one's on Sheffield United.

I'm not sure if he approached them or the other way round, which is why I put it in brackets.

[Alex 34100]

I'm not sure if he approached them or the other way round, which is why I put it in brackets.

I don't think it matters in regard to who's responsible. And I read it as the club testing the waters / gauging public opinion (not to mention how the time out of the game had affected the player).

[Andrew 4650]

Since when does rehabilitation equate to being able to walk straight into your old job after serving time for a very serious crime? I have some mixed feelings about it tbh but it's not as black and white as you're suggesting. Also, the court handed down a five year sentence and he served half of that despite showing no contrition. I don't see how that's just.

 

Since private companies are allowed to hire who they want to, its whoever hands him a contracts choice, whether that be a football club or a mcdonalds. The law (or the mob) has no right to prevent that and having served the sentence that the court who convicted him deemed acceptable that process has to be allowed to occur.

 

I tihnk its absurd, for instance, that the deputy prime minister has come out and said Evans should not be able to continue as a footballer when the right honourable gentleman has chosen to represent the government that upholds the very law that states he can do.

[Andrew 4650]

Don't think anyone's suggested that?

 

 

I think KCG is, since he doesn't think Evans should be able to return to work because hes been convicted of rape.

[Alex 34100]

 

Since private companies are allowed to hire who they want to, its whoever hands him a contracts choice, whether that be a football club or a mcdonalds. The law (or the mob) has no right to prevent that and having served the sentence that the court who convicted him deemed acceptable that process has to be allowed to occur.

 

I tihnk its absurd, for instance, that the deputy prime minister has come out and said Evans should not be able to continue as a footballer when the right honourable gentleman has chosen to represent the government that upholds the very law that states he can do.

I think it just confirms there's no morality in football that they even considered it tbh. Also, I think there's a huge difference between thinking it's wrong for the club to take him back straight away and legislating against it so I don't actually think there is anything wrong with people expressing a view on it.

[The Fish 10430]

I don't think it matters in regard to who's responsible. And I read it as the club testing the waters / gauging public opinion (not to mention how the time out of the game had affected the player).

 

They've got a fairly idiotic PR person if they didn't have the foresight to know that that Evans would be turning up to training riding a pale horse, with Hell would follow with him

[David Kelly 1205]

I believe she had already given her consent to him. Ched decided to rape her.

 

He was found guilty and had an appeal quashed yes?

Surely his mate is guilty of something in that scenario if he let him rape her?

 

I believe (although I'm by no means certain) that you are right in that he has had one appeal turned down.

[Alex 34100]

 

They've got a fairly idiotic PR person if they didn't have the foresight to know that that Evans would be turning up to training riding a pale horse, with Hell would follow with him

It was always going to be newsworthy but I doubt they anticipated the storm it would cause.

And I did agree with Rod Liddle for once, when he said many other players (Lee Hughes, Marlon King) had committed very serious offences with less of a furore about their return to the game so there's a degree of hypocrisy around this in some quarters.

[Alex 34100]

Surely his mate is guilty of something in that scenario if he let him rape her?

 

I believe (although I'm by no means certain) that you are right in that he has had one appeal turned down.

Aye, he lost an appeal.

[David Kelly 1205]

I think the argument you suggested Alex, that he didn't serve his full sentence isn't really relevant to this discussion. He served what the judicial system made him serve. It's not like he escaped or even used a loophole to get him out even though he was known to be guilty. It was deemed he'd served enough to be released.

I think it's a fair argument that a person convicted of rape should serve longer than he did but I don't think it has any impact on whether he should be able to go back to work once he has been released.

[David Kelly 1205]

This thing about it being any other job and he'd have no issues is bollocks. A criminal conviction of any kind would stop me from working anywhere decent. That might not be right but it's reality.

I think every football club should have the right to say they don't want to employ a convicted rapist just as any other company should. But they also should have the right to say they do want to. They should certainly take the opinion of their supporters and other employees into account when making the decision though.