|
Post by thebet365 on Jan 7, 2015 15:32:00 GMT
Well - had Evans signed for Stoke I wouldn't be campaigning outside the ground but almost certainly I would not attend a match whilst Evans was on the books and I would be letting the club know how I felt I trust you took the same stance whilst Pennant played for us ? It is only by sheer luck he didn't kill anyone whilst drink driving, not once not twice but 3 times ?? Driving down the wrong side of the road, hitting a lampost, that's not your low end just over the limit charges that was down right dangerous actions that thankfully didn't lead to anything more serious.
|
|
|
Post by santy on Jan 7, 2015 15:38:48 GMT
Mr Spitthedog can I please be allowed my own opinion? I suspect you have some divine influence that steers your judgement and means you categorically cannot be wrong... ever, but still I would like to reach such a state of enlightenment in my own time. I don't give two fucks either way, whether he's innocent or not will never truly be known irrespective of the conviction status. There's always going to be an element of doubt either way - people are only human and they make mistakes - not just Ched swinging his knob about freely but the people that then judged the evidence, and also the people now looking into it. People have agendas, they have biases, the jury may well have taken a disliking to Ched Evans for X/Y/Z and the people investigating the case now may well be swayed by the publicity it has garnered one way or another. Its simply impossible for people to be neutral. Odds are we've all come across people who have done something similar or possibly even far worse and never been any the wiser. Could be a close friend, a relative, a work colleague - could be anyone. About 12 months back a bloke I used to work with had a huge leaving do, everyone sad to see him go, was taking redundancy due to ill-health then we all read in the sentinel 2-3 months later he was a nonce. Some people had been friends with him for almost 20 years. You should always be careful when handing out such judgement because you never know when someone close to you may well be revealed.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jan 7, 2015 15:44:50 GMT
Mr Spitthedog can I please be allowed my own opinion? I suspect you have some divine influence that steers your judgement and means you categorically cannot be wrong... ever, but still I would like to reach such a state of enlightenment in my own time. I don't give two fucks either way, whether he's innocent or not will never truly be known irrespective of the conviction status. There's always going to be an element of doubt either way - people are only human and they make mistakes - not just Ched swinging his knob about freely but the people that then judged the evidence, and also the people now looking into it. People have agendas, they have biases, the jury may well have taken a disliking to Ched Evans for X/Y/Z and the people investigating the case now may well be swayed by the publicity it has garnered one way or another. Its simply impossible for people to be neutral. Odds are we've all come across people who have done something similar or possibly even far worse and never been any the wiser. Could be a close friend, a relative, a work colleague - could be anyone. About 12 months back a bloke I used to work with had a huge leaving do, everyone sad to see him go, was taking redundancy due to ill-health then we all read in the sentinel 2-3 months later he was a nonce. Some people had been friends with him for almost 20 years. You should always be careful when handing out such judgement because you never know when someone close to you may well be revealed. Santy, I don't think it's politically correct to use the term 'Nonce'. I believe that the generally accepted term is 'Bum Bandit', so please use that in future.
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jan 7, 2015 15:51:08 GMT
Anyone remember when Lawrence was caught up in that scandal involving the video-taped group sex activity at Sunderland?
Now it was categorically not rape, but if we apply a similar argument, what example was that providing?
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Jan 7, 2015 15:52:19 GMT
If a person goes out and gets really drunk and gets in a car and drives off. The person is held responsible for drink driving. If the same person gets equally as drunk, consents to and then has sex. The person they're having sex with is responsible for rape.
So in one instance - when intoxicated - a person is responsible for their actions, but in another instance they are not responsible for their actions and it becomes a crime for someone else?
Is this correct?
|
|
|
Post by TheWiseMaster on Jan 7, 2015 15:53:10 GMT
Well - had Evans signed for Stoke I wouldn't be campaigning outside the ground but almost certainly I would not attend a match whilst Evans was on the books and I would be letting the club know how I felt I trust you took the same stance whilst Pennant played for us ? It is only by sheer luck he didn't kill anyone whilst drink driving, not once not twice but 3 times ?? Driving down the wrong side of the road, hitting a lampost, that's not your low end just over the limit charges that was down right dangerous actions that thankfully didn't lead to anything more serious. You make your moral judgements and I will make mine
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 7, 2015 15:56:18 GMT
If a person goes out and gets really drunk and gets in a car and drives off. The person is held responsible for drink driving. If the same person gets equally as drunk, consents to and then has sex. The person they're having sex with is responsible for rape. So in one instance - when intoxicated - a person is responsible for their actions, but in another instance they are not responsible for their actions and it becomes a crime for someone else? Is this correct? Not quite sure what you're trying to explain here?
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Jan 7, 2015 16:00:20 GMT
If a person goes out and gets really drunk and gets in a car and drives off. The person is held responsible for drink driving. If the same person gets equally as drunk, consents to and then has sex. The person they're having sex with is responsible for rape. So in one instance - when intoxicated - a person is responsible for their actions, but in another instance they are not responsible for their actions and it becomes a crime for someone else? Is this correct? Not quite sure what you're trying to explain here? I'm not trying to explain anything. It's a question I've been pondering: why the law will consider you responsible for your action when drunk in virtually all circumstances, but not in this one specific circumstance. I'm just curious if my interpretation is correct? No angle (in this instance ), just wondering.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2015 16:01:26 GMT
hurray... loveable Ched has signed for Oldham can we get back to Stoke City news now please
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Jan 7, 2015 16:01:36 GMT
The part of this debate that interests me is the focus on 'role models'. I am not sure kids see footballers as role models in the way it is currently being portrayed, but I am sure that I as a parent would be horrified if my children saw footballers as role models. Generally they are young kids who have left school relatively early to be paid way above average salaries, often as a result of funding by owners who have acquired their wealth in "interesting" circumstances, working in an industry that has many examples of questionable behaviour from its leaders at all levels. I am interested in what aspects of behaviour are most 'model', amongst the leaders corruption, sexism, or racism fro example, for players it could be use of foul language, diving, cheating by appealing for decisions when they know it is not correct or surrounding the referee to out pressure on for starters. It feels to me that legitimate concerns about this specific case have morphed into some very strange views about football and footballers generally which I suspect will come back to haunt football via random future political interventions
I preferred life before Nick Hornby and italia '90 when the chattering classes left football alone
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jan 7, 2015 16:03:43 GMT
Not quite sure what you're trying to explain here? I'm not trying to explain anything. It's a question I've been pondering: why the law will consider you responsible for your action when drunk in virtually all circumstances, but not in this one specific circumstance. I'm just curious if my interpretation is correct? No angle (in this instance ), just wondering. I don't know, but in the eyes of the law can someone give consent to sex when intoxicated? Much in the same way a 15 year old who consents with a 16 year old couldn't have sex as in the eyes of the law as the 16 year old would be guilty of Statutory Rape.
|
|
|
Post by talentspotter on Jan 7, 2015 16:08:09 GMT
Can't see how any appeal process could be looked at either favourably or fairly given the public and media involvement since the trial. Any reversal or acquittal would make many people, including senior politicians, sports stars, musicians and several companies who have withdrawn, look somewhat stupid and in a potentially libellous position. Should they not allow an appeal as a result, questions could surely be asked about the handling of this case. The question is, if he has been given the right to appeal, how have reporting restrictions not been addressed, as they have surely destroyed any hope of overturning a decision that some are questioning.
|
|
|
Post by TheWiseMaster on Jan 7, 2015 16:15:51 GMT
Can't see how any appeal process could be looked at either favourably or fairly given the public and media involvement since the trial. Any reversal or acquittal would make many people, including senior politicians, sports stars, musicians and several companies who have withdrawn, look somewhat stupid and in a potentially libellous position. Should they not allow an appeal as a result, questions could surely be asked about the handling of this case. The question is, if he has been given the right to appeal, how have reporting restrictions not been addressed, as they have surely destroyed any hope of overturning a decision that some are questioning. This is not an appeal - I believe the judgement was appealed and the appeal failed There is a body however which looks at court decisions and decides if the court decision is safe or unsafe (have correct procedures been followed etc) - that is the process currently underway
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jan 7, 2015 16:18:56 GMT
If a person goes out and gets really drunk and gets in a car and drives off. The person is held responsible for drink driving. If the same person gets equally as drunk, consents to and then has sex. The person they're having sex with is responsible for rape. So in one instance - when intoxicated - a person is responsible for their actions, but in another instance they are not responsible for their actions and it becomes a crime for someone else? Is this correct? It's a good question but maybe it is only your INACTION when inebriated you are not responsible for, everything else you are. So while Evans may have been equally or more inebriated than the girl it was he who took the (responsible) ACTION to bury his head in the cleft between her thighs for 30 seconds or so whereas the girl's INACTION in not making any attempt to stop him she is not accountable for. At that flash in drunken time he was a gonna. I just think god help us all given it is so ambiguous.
|
|
|
Post by talentspotter on Jan 7, 2015 16:26:31 GMT
Can't see how any appeal process could be looked at either favourably or fairly given the public and media involvement since the trial. Any reversal or acquittal would make many people, including senior politicians, sports stars, musicians and several companies who have withdrawn, look somewhat stupid and in a potentially libellous position. Should they not allow an appeal as a result, questions could surely be asked about the handling of this case. The question is, if he has been given the right to appeal, how have reporting restrictions not been addressed, as they have surely destroyed any hope of overturning a decision that some are questioning. This is not an appeal - I believe the judgement was appealed and the appeal failed There is a body however which looks at court decisions and decides if the court decision is safe or unsafe (have correct procedures been followed etc) - that is the process currently underway Thanks for setting the record straight. The arbitrators are still in the same position seemingly, and Ched Evans is in their hands. Can you imagine the furore if they were to conclude that the case is unsafe, given the circus that this case has generated?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2015 16:31:49 GMT
what staggers me completely is that if someone says that Evans should be allowed to play football (which is the law of the country we live in and nothing to do with their personal opinion on the case or indeed even Evans specifically) then apparently it's absolutely and perfectly fine for posters to label you a "Rape apologist" and now a "Rapist wanabe" and admin and the mods sit back and do fuck all about it!!!
it's one thing calling people a "C'*~" or a "Prick" etc. etc. but now apparently we can accuse people of being "Rapist wanabes" and that's absolutely fine????
FFS Admin, try doing your bleeding job...either stop people from trolling in that way or bin the thread...preferably both!
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Jan 7, 2015 16:39:39 GMT
If a person goes out and gets really drunk and gets in a car and drives off. The person is held responsible for drink driving. If the same person gets equally as drunk, consents to and then has sex. The person they're having sex with is responsible for rape. So in one instance - when intoxicated - a person is responsible for their actions, but in another instance they are not responsible for their actions and it becomes a crime for someone else? Is this correct? It's a good question but maybe it is only your INACTION when inebriated you are not responsible for, everything else you are. So while Evans may have been equally or more inebriated than the girl it was he who took the (responsible) ACTION to bury his head in the cleft between her thighs for 30 seconds or so whereas the girl's INACTION in not making any attempt to stop him she is not accountable for. At that flash in drunken time he was a gonna. I just think god help us all given it is so ambiguous. But as I understand it she consented to sex with Evans (he asked if he could join in and she agreed). I just don't understand how the law can say that you're too drunk to consent and therefore you're absolved of your responsibility, but when you're equally as drunk, you're responsible for your actions to chose to drive? I'm just pointing out that the law appears to be a bit of a mess.
|
|
|
Post by bertieb on Jan 7, 2015 16:46:02 GMT
Dont know if this has already been mentioned but what I cant get my head round is this, did Clayton stay when evans was having sex, if so he either watched two consenting adults or he saw the girl give no consent and therfore watched a rape, if this is the case why didn't he stop it and why hasnt he been punished for watching a rape take place. That's if he was in the room of course.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2015 16:50:13 GMT
It's a good question but maybe it is only your INACTION when inebriated you are not responsible for, everything else you are. So while Evans may have been equally or more inebriated than the girl it was he who took the (responsible) ACTION to bury his head in the cleft between her thighs for 30 seconds or so whereas the girl's INACTION in not making any attempt to stop him she is not accountable for. At that flash in drunken time he was a gonna. I just think god help us all given it is so ambiguous. But as I understand it she consented to sex with Evans (he asked if he could join in and she agreed). I just don't understand how the law can say that you're too drunk to consent and therefore you're absolved of your responsibility, but when you're equally as drunk, you're responsible for your actions to chose to drive? I'm just pointing out that the law appears to be a bit of a mess. her consenting to Evans is something that Evans and McDonald said. there is no proof of it actually being fact. she said she doesn't remember anything so has no idea if she did consent to one, both or neither but that isn't the point. the point is that the jury obviously felt that her conversation with McDonald, the fact that she willingly went back to a hotel room with him and had to take a taxi journey to do so gave enough element of doubt to say she had some idea of what was going to happen with McDonald and had enough time to think it through and that was enough to clear him. Evans turning up unannounced and uninvited gave her no time to think through what she was doing, even in an inebriated state. i genuinely don't see why people still don't get the difference
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2015 16:51:50 GMT
Dont know if this has already been mentioned but what I cant get my head round is this, did Clayton stay when evans was having sex, if so he either watched two consenting adults or he saw the girl give no consent and therfore watched a rape, if this is the case why didn't he stop it and why hasnt he been punished for watching a rape take place. That's if he was in the room of course. no-one has said she didn't give consent.....it's not to do with whether she did or didn't say "Yes", it was because she was deemed not to be in a fit state to even know what she was consenting to and had no time to think it through even if she did say yes
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Jan 7, 2015 16:53:56 GMT
Dont know if this has already been mentioned but what I cant get my head round is this, did Clayton stay when evans was having sex, if so he either watched two consenting adults or he saw the girl give no consent and therfore watched a rape, if this is the case why didn't he stop it and why hasnt he been punished for watching a rape take place. That's if he was in the room of course. He left after Evans asked to join in and she consented, but he musn't have fancied a 3some so left the room. However even if he had stayed the law haven't disputed the fact she gave consent, just that she wasn't in a fit state to give consent. What went on in the room isn't being disputed by Evans vs the Crown. Just how it's interpreted in the eyes of the law.
|
|
|
Post by bertieb on Jan 7, 2015 16:57:19 GMT
I realise that Mick I was looking at it from Claytons point of view if she consented to him she wasn't drunker when Evans had sex with her surely, and so Clayton either watched consenting sex or a rape, if he watched a rape he is equally guilty in.my eyes
|
|
|
Post by bertieb on Jan 7, 2015 16:58:57 GMT
Ah so he left the room, forget what I said then !
|
|
|
Post by jeycov on Jan 7, 2015 17:01:26 GMT
If he is able to move on and get back to playing football (time will tell) how about asking his "mates" to stop hounding the girl and her family.
I feel sorry for the Oldham fans, they are in the news for all of the wrong reasons and no doubt some fans and sponsors will no longer give their support
No comments from any players so far?
|
|
|
Post by foster on Jan 7, 2015 17:02:56 GMT
what staggers me completely is that if someone says that Evans should be allowed to play football (which is the law of the country we live in and nothing to do with their personal opinion on the case or indeed even Evans specifically) then apparently it's absolutely and perfectly fine for posters to label you a "Rape apologist" and now a "Rapist wanabe" and admin and the mods sit back and do fuck all about it!!! it's one thing calling people a "C'*~" or a "Prick" etc. etc. but now apparently we can accuse people of being "Rapist wanabes" and that's absolutely fine???? FFS Admin, try doing your bleeding job...either stop people from trolling in that way or bin the thread...preferably both! To call a bunch of posters in this thread rapist wanabees is both inaccurate and reprehensible.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2015 17:07:41 GMT
If he is able to move on and get back to playing football (time will tell) how about asking his "mates" to stop hounding the girl and her family. I feel sorry for the Oldham fans, they are in the news for all of the wrong reasons and no doubt some fans and sponsors will no longer give their support No comments from any players so far? do you think they are his "mates"? really? they'd probably never even heard of Ched Evans before all this happened..they're not his mates, they're simply called "internet trolls" that will jump on any news story and say what they want in order to cyber bully people. i presume you're equally as keen for the girl to get her "Mates" to stop sending the same kind of abuse and death threats to Evans as well yeah? there have plenty of trolls on both sides and both have been equally as abhorrent and reprehensible as each other but to say it's the fault of the parties involved (either Evans or the girl) is ludicrous. these people aren't Evans fans or rape apologists even, they're just absolute scum who get off on abusing others and undoubtedly do so on many other subjects every day not just this one. what the pricks on social media have done isn't Evans' fault, it's the fault of the world today and the way that people are obsessed with cyber stalking and abusing people. most probably don't know the facts of the case, who the girl is or who Evans is, it's just what their idea of fun is and they'll move onto trolling other people when another news story crops up. it's not the fault of Evans, it's the fault of social media allowing everyone and anyone the apparent right to do and say what they want regardless as to whether or not it's even legal.
|
|
|
Post by talentspotter on Jan 7, 2015 17:14:52 GMT
But as I understand it she consented to sex with Evans (he asked if he could join in and she agreed). I just don't understand how the law can say that you're too drunk to consent and therefore you're absolved of your responsibility, but when you're equally as drunk, you're responsible for your actions to chose to drive? I'm just pointing out that the law appears to be a bit of a mess. her consenting to Evans is something that Evans and McDonald said. there is no proof of it actually being fact. she said she doesn't remember anything so has no idea if she did consent to one, both or neither but that isn't the point. the point is that the jury obviously felt that her conversation with McDonald, the fact that she willingly went back to a hotel room with him and had to take a taxi journey to do so gave enough element of doubt to say she had some idea of what was going to happen with McDonald and had enough time to think it through and that was enough to clear him. Evans turning up unannounced and uninvited gave her no time to think through what she was doing, even in an inebriated state. i genuinely don't see why people still don't get the difference I think some of the reasons why people don't get the difference is not to do with both of the men did. I think its generated from an apparent anomaly that the jury have accepted that the victim consented to be with Donald and not Evans, not from where/when they have first come into contact, but from alcohol consumption. I think some people are confused about why the jury have accepted Donalds defence that she was sober enough to consent to him. In other words she is either drunk to the point where the defence becomes void or she is not. The amount of time spent with each party should probably not have formed part of the decision. The girl is either fit or unfit to consent. That is the key point. They have believed Donald had been given consent, but then disregarded his evidence, albeit as co accused, that he heard consent being given also to Evans. It's like they believe his account on one hand and not on the other. That's why some are questioning the safety of the conviction.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Jan 7, 2015 17:17:08 GMT
But as I understand it she consented to sex with Evans (he asked if he could join in and she agreed). I just don't understand how the law can say that you're too drunk to consent and therefore you're absolved of your responsibility, but when you're equally as drunk, you're responsible for your actions to chose to drive? I'm just pointing out that the law appears to be a bit of a mess. her consenting to Evans is something that Evans and McDonald said. there is no proof of it actually being fact. she said she doesn't remember anything so has no idea if she did consent to one, both or neither but that isn't the point. the point is that the jury obviously felt that her conversation with McDonald, the fact that she willingly went back to a hotel room with him and had to take a taxi journey to do so gave enough element of doubt to say she had some idea of what was going to happen with McDonald and had enough time to think it through and that was enough to clear him. Evans turning up unannounced and uninvited gave her no time to think through what she was doing, even in an inebriated state. i genuinely don't see why people still don't get the difference
I can obviously understand the difference - but what I can't understand is that when two people said she consented, and the other person there said she can't remember, that there can sufficient confidence that he could be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That is the basis of our legal system and I just can't see how it was proved sufficiently to give a sound conviction. I really can't.
|
|
|
Post by southcranford on Jan 7, 2015 17:18:34 GMT
Was she too drunk to consent, or did she give drunken consent?? Fuck knows...the jury decided she was too drunk to consent. The worrying thing to consider on the basis of this ruling is that anyone who has slept with their wife/girlfriend/mistress/*any random girl on a night out* after theyve been on a boozy night out on the town, may very well have commited the same rape offence as Evans...
|
|
|
Post by Sergeant Muttley on Jan 7, 2015 17:20:00 GMT
Sick to death of hearing about now tbh,just sign for Oldham and everybody get on with their lifes
|
|