Ched Evans

[drunkenmaster]

And yet Owen Oyston is a convicted rapist who served 3 years and he OWNs a football club, yet no one is bothered about what Blackpool FC are doing right now. Dont see people boycotting games or refusing to play against the team or not wanting to be associated with the club, etc, etc

I'm not saying I necessarily back Evans to play again, but double standards....

Double standards, that doesn't come close. Threatening to rape the daughter of an owner if he dares hire a convicted rapist? Rapists are terrible, but raping is okay, I think that is the ultimate double standard.

We've got a society that is as usually pretty scared to speak up for what is right or sensible because the louder minority make life hell for everyone. You have a court which seemingly decided that because a girl who can't remember saying no got drunk and had sex with two guys must have been raped because what woman would have sex with two guys... errm, lots, and there is nothing wrong with it.

Is Ched Evans a cheating git who probably snuck in through a window more to avoid paparazzi as he cheated, sure, does that make him a rapist, I really don't think so. The most troubling thing is from everything I've read about the case nothing proves he did OR didn't rape the girl but there is absolutely not enough evidence to convict him. He's been in jail for 2.5 years and now unable to return to work because by and large, we live in a society scared to speak out against a woman or importantly even appear to do so. If the jury said not guilty you'd get them being accused of calling her 'easy' and the like, of being rape apologists. The hypocritical thing is men really don't care if women sleep around, men use the word 'easy' because women who don't sleep around call women who do 'easy'. It's women who are massively worse about it and then women who get upset about it.

EDIT:- didn't know the s word was banned, another word for an 'easy' woman.

I would feel genuinely horrible for her if she was raped but putting someone in jail with little to no evidence is nuts.

I also can't be arsed to write a massive thing about it but that we decide to use rape as a general term is nuts. A guy who has sex with a drunk girl who was absolutely into it is then found guilty of rape because she was too drunk to consent(though did) and didn't want to take responsibility for that decision gets called a rapist, but so does the guy who stalks a random lady, attacks, violently rapes, beats within an inch of her life... we call them both rapist with the same disdain. When someone kills someone in self defence we don't look down on them the same way as someone who cold bloodedly killed someone, and we class the offences differently murder, manslaughter, 1st/2nd degree, etc.

If "rape" which inexplicably can't be used to describe women who commit heinous acts, was categorised sensibly then Evans would probably be branded something like sexual assault in the 2nd degree.

The punishment here isn't fitting the crime and it's fairly likely he didn't even commit the crime.

 

[RoboCod]

Whilst not the same as rape, many footballers have been convicted of violent crimes, GBH, ABH, generally thuggery, and then continue to play in high profile clubs in the EPL. Where is the line? If they are convicted of a crime, should they be instantly blocked from playing? Why is there grey area? Is one crime permissible in the eyes of the FA and the public who watch them play, whereas another crime is not?

Personally I believe if a person has paid their debt in the form of a court sentence then they should be allowed to continue their lives normally. If this guy was working in 99% of other roles no one would give a damn.

 

[Caseh]

I just can't understand why more isn't being made of the threats. Absolutely disgusting.

And yes Tummy, I know Evans "supporters" also sent abuse etc to the victim. Which is also disgusting. But if one group of people are going to take the moral high ground, and then issue threats such as that is just vile.

 

[Moothead2]

I just can't understand why more isn't being made of the death threats. Absolutely disgusting.

Because the police would be labelled a rape apologist for doing so most likely .

 

[Caseh]

Because the police would be labelled a rape apologist for doing so most likely .

Sounds like this forum

 

[drunkenmaster]

I love football, I love the beautiful game and I genuinely cannot stand these people whom infest the game.

Football brings people together, it has a huge social, political, economical place within the World and should collectively tell these absolutely dregs to go away.

You commit tax fraud, or do not pay child support, do not pay fines whatever, ok, you've served your time, paid your debts and upon appeal you'll likely play again. There are crimes which are acceptable in society, crimes which people are stupid and irresponsible to commit but are forgivable.

You drunk drive and kill people, you rape someone... get the **** out. You want to buy your child a shirt with 'King' or 'Evans' on the back. Society should to an extent turn their back on these people, they have committed atrocious acts.

It has taken Evans this long to apologise, even in a half arsed way.

What exactly would you do if you had sex with a drunk woman, when drunk yourself and she cried rape when she consented at the time, did nothing to indicate she wasn't in to it but at a later date you end up doing 2.5 years because a jury decided a woman isn't responsible under the influence of alcohol.

If this same woman had run someone over while drunk, would it be okay to strip her of her responsibility? The issue isn't defending a rapist, though, there is no logical argument for allowing someone to return to work but just not a job you want to have, it's talking about the extremely real possibility he is innocent and thus already being through a hell of a lot he didn't deserve in the slightest.

If he is in fact innocent(and there are lots of reasons to believe he did nothing wrong at all) then does excluding him from football seem fair?

If he was getting a job as a garbage man, and all the other garbage men protested, and families and friends of the garbage men started threatening the bosses at such places, would that be fine too? Exactly what job should he go into, is he not being hounded out of football because people deem the job too good, but then exactly what job is fair?

If it was a straight open and shut case, no questions he would have very little support and he potentially should find it harder to get a job, however he'd also have likely got a much more severe sentence.

I'm not supporting 'him' in the slightest, just the situation, the case is pretty much joke worthy and is both a terrible precedent and a terrible sign of the way things seem to be going lately. A huge number of people saying this is unfair are the same, they aren't supporting him but can't see any logic in the conviction in the first place.

Maybe the case should be opened up and explained better to better explain why he was found guilty, what I've read(which appears to be from people in court who witnessed the case) he really shouldn't have been found guilty to begin with.

 

[blues_r_best]

Looks like he is signing after all (POOR TASTE ALERT!!):

NewsThump

 

[blues_r_best]

I just can't understand why more isn't being made of the threats. Absolutely disgusting.

And yes Tummy, I know Evans "supporters" also sent abuse etc to the victim. Which is also disgusting. But if one group of people are going to take the moral high ground, and then issue threats such as that is just vile.

Because the police would be labelled a rape apologist for doing so most likely .

So no threats made to Oldham board and sponsors, other than low level abuse on twitter.

https://twitter.com/david_conn/status/553187082450264064

This whole issue just gets seedier and seedier.

 

[Tummy]

Whilst not the same as rape, many footballers have been convicted of violent crimes, GBH, ABH, generally thuggery, and then continue to play in high profile clubs in the EPL. Where is the line? If they are convicted of a crime, should they be instantly blocked from playing? Why is there grey area? Is one crime permissible in the eyes of the FA and the public who watch them play, whereas another crime is not?

Personally I believe if a person has paid their debt in the form of a court sentence then they should be allowed to continue their lives normally. If this guy was working in 99% of other roles no one would give a damn.

They have been some examples of American Football taking a zero policy towards domestic abuse.

I would not want them playing Football, it is a violent crime.

It is not that crime is permissible, I would suspend any player whom is under investigation from playing. Convicted and no custodial sentence, no prison, ok, I would have them attend classes, fined by the governing body (as would the club be) and then once all this is settled move on.

If it's a violent crime (of which no prison term is served) they would face similar, with an extended interview with the panel I would establish.

If it carries a prison sentence, goodbye. You have appeal.

If this person was working in 99% of other cases, people absolutely would give a damn, it just would not be in the media spot light. You think there would not be outrage if a teacher had done similar? a door man? a supermarket worker? There would be outrage, but not front page national headlines.

I just can't understand why more isn't being made of the threats. Absolutely disgusting.

And yes Tummy, I know Evans "supporters" also sent abuse etc to the victim. Which is also disgusting. But if one group of people are going to take the moral high ground, and then issue threats such as that is just vile.

I agree, I think they're both abhorrent, I would have the police investigate and prosecute both parties.

 

[Tummy]

What exactly would you do if you had sex with a drunk woman, when drunk yourself and she cried rape when she consented at the time, did nothing to indicate she wasn't in to it but at a later date you end up doing 2.5 years because a jury decided a woman isn't responsible under the influence of alcohol.

If this same woman had run someone over while drunk, would it be okay to strip her of her responsibility? The issue isn't defending a rapist, though, there is no logical argument for allowing someone to return to work but just not a job you want to have, it's talking about the extremely real possibility he is innocent and thus already being through a hell of a lot he didn't deserve in the slightest.

If he is in fact innocent(and there are lots of reasons to believe he did nothing wrong at all) then does excluding him from football seem fair?

If he was getting a job as a garbage man, and all the other garbage men protested, and families and friends of the garbage men started threatening the bosses at such places, would that be fine too? Exactly what job should he go into, is he not being hounded out of football because people deem the job too good, but then exactly what job is fair?

If it was a straight open and shut case, no questions he would have very little support and he potentially should find it harder to get a job, however he'd also have likely got a much more severe sentence.

I'm not supporting 'him' in the slightest, just the situation, the case is pretty much joke worthy and is both a terrible precedent and a terrible sign of the way things seem to be going lately. A huge number of people saying this is unfair are the same, they aren't supporting him but can't see any logic in the conviction in the first place.

Maybe the case should be opened up and explained better to better explain why he was found guilty, what I've read(which appears to be from people in court who witnessed the case) he really shouldn't have been found guilty to begin with.

You know what DM, my sexual congress is always black or white, there is never a grey area. I think that there is a problem in society with men and their sense of entitlement towards women and I think this is only increased in people who are removed and detached from society. There are some abhorrent things that 'nearly' happen on student nights out.

If I got a text from a friend late in the night, telling me he 'had got a bird' and I should come and have my go. You know ******** what, I do not have any friends like that.

So no threats made to Oldham board and sponsors, other than low level abuse on twitter.

https://twitter.com/david_conn/status/553187082450264064

This whole issue just gets seedier and seedier.

Interesting for Oldham.

 

[brendy]

If I got a text from a friend late in the night, telling me he 'had got a bird' and I should come and have my go. You know ******** what, I do not have any friends like that.

http://chedevans.com/key-and-undisputed-facts

Have a read.

 

[drunkenmaster]

You know what DM, my sexual congress is always black or white, there is never a grey area. I think that there is a problem in society with men and their sense of entitlement towards women and I think this is only increased in people who are removed and detached from society. There are some abhorrent things that 'nearly' happen on student nights out.

If I got a text from a friend late in the night, telling me he 'had got a bird' and I should come and have my go. You know ******** what, I do not have any friends like that.



Interesting for Oldham.

So what you're saying is, because you have different sexual preferences, he should go to jail. I don't have mates who would text me that, nor would I text that to someone, I would want no part in it... but that doesn't mean people who get up to sexual things I don't are rapists.

That is the problem here, and what I believe probably happened with the jury.

If a woman absolutely 100% on her own, sober, decides to round up 10 guys on tinder and bang them all, then cry rape afterwards, does it become rape because you wouldn't want to be part of an orgy?

You're judging him not based on any law, but your own preferences. That is why I believe he was convicted incorrectly, people who can't tell the difference.

Exactly what part of what you've just said is illegal? It is illegal to tell someone you're having sex with a girl and do you want to join in, no, is it illegal for him to have sex with her if she consents(which from what I've seen in evidence, she did at the time) yes, is it cringe worthy and would I do it, no, does that make it worthy of 2.5 years in jail and being called a rapist.... not at all.

Now if the guy had the girl, she was unconscious and one or both men knew it and she didn't consent that is ENTIRELY different, but that isn't from anything I've seen, what happened.

 

[Tummy]

http://chedevans.com/key-and-undisputed-facts

Have a read.

Why? That website is under a legal case from the courts. It is not an unbiased source.

So what you're saying is, because you have different sexual preferences, he should go to jail. I don't have mates who would text me that, nor would I text that to someone, I would want no part in it... but that doesn't mean people who get up to sexual things I don't are rapists.

That is the problem here, and what I believe probably happened with the jury.

If a woman absolutely 100% on her own, sober, decides to round up 10 guys on tinder and bang them all, then cry rape afterwards, does it become rape because you wouldn't want to be part of an orgy?

You're judging him not based on any law, but your own preferences. That is why I believe he was convicted incorrectly, people who can't tell the difference.

Exactly what part of what you've just said is illegal? It is illegal to tell someone you're having sex with a girl and do you want to join in, no, is it illegal for him to have sex with her if she consents(which from what I've seen in evidence, she did at the time) yes, is it cringe worthy and would I do it, no, does that make it worthy of 2.5 years in jail and being called a rapist.... not at all.

Now if the guy had the girl, she was unconscious and one or both men knew it and she didn't consent that is ENTIRELY different, but that isn't from anything I've seen, what happened.

Yes, my sexual preference is to not have sex with girls whom are too drunk. I think people would agree that having sex with someone whom is too drunk to say no, or unable to say no, prevent you from doing, so is wrong, both in the eyes of the law and society.

Did you really just say those words DM? REALLY?

Also; re the 'she consents to have sex with Evans' statement, were you in court? I doubt it. So do not talk rubbish once again.

Yes I think it is wrong to rape a drunken girl. What a terrible person I am with my sexual preference to have sex with women whom is not too drunk.

 

[drunkenmaster]

WEll done Tummy, now read the post of yours that I quoted.. where i the post OF YOURS THAT I QUOTED did you say having sex with a drunken girl was wrong? That's right Tummy, no where, so thanks for making up a post of things I didn't say and accusing me of saying having sex with a 'girl too drunk to consent' was fine when I said nothing of the sort. Well done, hypocritical, incapable of reading his own posts and making wild accusations about what I believe is okay or not.

That she was too drunk to remember is NOT IN EVIDENCE, there is no evidence that is true. That she didn't or couldn't consent is not a fact, no one knows how drunk she was.

More to the point afaik the guys had been drinking and determining the other persons level of sobriety is pretty much impossible. I have gone entire evenings black out drunk in which people can't believe I couldn't remember because I acted so normally.

You are deciding, with no evidence that she was too drunk to consent which IS IMPOSSIBLE. She says she can't remember the time in the room, the people that do say she consented, that is the evidence from the court room, what do you know that they don't? It's he said, she said, with no proof of either side.

My post didn't even mention her ability to say no directly nor reference you saying this in the post of yours I quoted BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT.

Your post summed up was, his mate texted him to come and have a go with a girl he was with.... I wouldn't do that... so he's guilty. It's black and white for you but the only facts you related to this were you wouldn't and don't even have friends who would text you to have sex with their girl.... NOTHING ELSE. You didn't link it to anything else.

You're asking me for proof while making your own assumptions that weren't in evidence. I have been with people(just in general) at parties/clubs where I know they are drunk but have precisely no idea how drunk. If a friend says lets go to another club, I don't think... oh maybe they aren't sober enough to make that decision. Nor when a friends tells me he's going to some girls house, when I can see he's drunk, would I stop him for fear of him being raped.

it's her responsibility how drunk she got, unless there is proof that someone spiked her drink or plied her with alcohol, of which there was no proof.

You're assuming she was too drunk to say no with zero proof of that, you're assuming the guys knew she was too drunk to consent and you're acting like it's easy to tell how drunk someone is.

 

[Tummy]

WEll done Tummy, now read the post of yours that I quoted.. where i the post OF YOURS THAT I QUOTED did you say having sex with a drunken girl was wrong? That's right Tummy, no where, so thanks for making up a post of things I didn't say and accusing me of saying having sex with a 'drunk' girl was wrong when I said nothing of the sort.

That she was too drunk to remember is NOT IN EVIDENCE, there is no evidence that is true. That she didn't or couldn't consent is by the above, not a fact, no one knows how drunk she was.

More to the point afaik the guys had been drinking and determining the other persons level of sobriety is pretty much impossible.

I have gone entire evenings black out drunk in which people can't believe I couldn't remember because I acted so normally.

You are deciding, with no evidence that she was too drunk to consent which IS IMPOSSIBLE. She says she can't remember the time in the room, the people that do say she consented, that is the evidence from the court room, what do you know that they don't? It's he said, she said, with no proof of either side.

My post didn't even mention her ability to say no directly nor reference you saying this in the post of yours I quoted BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT.

Your post summed up was, his mate texted him to come and have a go with a girl he was with.... I wouldn't do that... so he's guilty. It's black and white for you but the only facts you related to this were you wouldn't and don't even have friends who would text you to have sex with their girl.... NOTHING ELSE. You didn't link it to anything else. You post directly said what I suggested was nuts.

You're asking me for proof while making your own assumptions that weren't in evidence.

I have been with people(just in general) at parties/clubs where I know they are drunk but have precisely no idea how drunk. If a friend says lets go to another club, I don't think... oh maybe they aren't sober enough to make that decision. Nor when a friends tells me he's going to some girls house, when I can see he's drunk, would I stop him for fear of him being raped.

it's her responsibility how drunk she got, unless there is proof that someone spiked her drink or plied her with alcohol, of which there was no proof.

You're assuming she was too drunk to say no with zero proof of that, you're assuming the guys knew she was too drunk to consent and you're acting like it's easy to tell how drunk someone is.

So... it is the girls fault she got too drunk and got raped?

Picks up drunk girl. Takes her to hotel room. Texts friend to come and 'have his go'. Friend turns up and has his go. Two friends film through a window. Girl goes through an absolutely horrific court case to find some semblance of justice is just absolutely horrible (not to mention having to change her identity FIVE times). Evans (friend who was invited over to 'have his go') is found guilty of rape in court. Appeal rejected. Sentence. Served half, released early to serve the rest outside of prison.

This is not the girls fault.

 

[Andybtsn]

What we've learnt here is that if a rival club of yours wants a good player threaten that clubs board's family.

I can't believe they gave into the threats.

...What a farce.

 

[drunkenmaster]

So... it is the girls fault she got too drunk and got raped?

Picks up drunk girl. Takes her to hotel room. Texts friend to come and 'have his go'. Friend turns up and has his go. Two friends film through a window. Girl goes through an absolutely horrific court case to find some semblance of justice is just absolutely horrible (not to mention having to change her identity FIVE times). Evans (friend who was invited over to 'have his go') is found guilty of rape in court. Appeal rejected. Sentence. Served half, released early to serve the rest outside of prison.

This is not the girls fault.

Where did I state this?

I said it's the girls responsibility how drunk she gets, do not add on things that I didn't say, honestly, that is utterly despicable of you. THere are few people I find truly horrible on this forum but you just became the single worst person.

I said, quoting

it's her responsibility how drunk she got

and you turned it into

it is the girls fault she got too drunk and got raped?

then attributed it to me, what an absolute, giant, can't say the 15 words I want to because I'll get banned... person you are.

How god damned dare you attribute that to me, when I said nothing even god damned close.

 

[Tummy]

So no threats made to Oldham board and sponsors, other than low level abuse on twitter.

https://twitter.com/david_conn/status/553187082450264064

This whole issue just gets seedier and seedier.

What we've learnt here is that if a rival club of yours wants a good player threaten that clubs board's family.

I can't believe they gave into the threats.

...What a farce.

It would appear no threats made to Oldham board, only Twitter abuse.

So, despite a convicted rapists family offering to give a club financial benefits (to make up for the sponsors dropping them) and play the wages of said rapist, the club still do not want to take him on.

 

[Tummy]

You are deciding, with no evidence that she was too drunk to consent which IS IMPOSSIBLE. She says she can't remember the time in the room, the people that do say she consented, that is the evidence from the court room, what do you know that they don't? It's he said, she said, with no proof of either side.

A court of law decided that and rejected the appeal.

 

[Tummy]

I said it's the girls responsibility how drunk she gets, do not add on things that I didn't say, honestly, that is utterly despicable of you. THere are few people I find truly horrible on this forum but you just became the single worst person.

So it is the girls responsibility to not get too drunk, it is the girls responsibility to not get too drunk. Someone should be able to get too drunk without being raped. Do not blame the girl for being too drunk to remember what happened. People should know their limits, but even when they are exceeded it is no excuse to then blame the victim of a horrific sexual assault.

Yep, **** me for defending the victim. Not for looking for excuses as to why this rape is not a rape (except it is in a court of law).