Ched Evans

[Robin Evans]

I've looked at this from the evidence, it is not my opinion about rape. I just wanted to clarify that before I comment further.

If Evans and Clayton had said "no comment" we would be still speculating on the truth and he would still be playing football. I can't come to any other conclusion.

So why he was so candid? Nothing to hide? Guilt? Either way his testimony isn't evidence.

How do you prove this?

by years of good published clinical/forensic reaserch undertaken by learned clinicians working with offenders and victims.

Shared consensus of opinions are used as indicators in evidence within the legal system

[l'angelo mysterioso]

I've looked at this from the evidence, it is not my opinion about rape. I just wanted to clarify that before I comment further.

 

If Evans and Clayton had said "no comment" we would be still speculating on the truth and he would still be playing football. I can't come to any other conclusion.

So why he was so candid? Nothing to hide? Guilt? Either way his testimony isn't evidence.

 

 

How do you prove this?

why was he so candid? Well the evidence seems to point towards him thinking that there was nothing wrong in what he had done. Either way the evidence that no sexual intercourse had taken place, evidence that you chose to include in your post is irrelevant. What sort of evidence would you expect?

[Robin Evans]

Yrs it is the state's responsibility to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. That's what happened.

Evans should not have had sex with a woman that could not say no..... do that and you get sent to orison

[l'angelo mysterioso]

I've looked at this from the evidence, it is not my opinion about rape. I just wanted to clarify that before I comment further.

 

If Evans and Clayton had said "no comment" we would be still speculating on the truth and he would still be playing football. I can't come to any other conclusion.

So why he was so candid? Nothing to hide? Guilt? Either way his testimony isn't evidence.

 

 

How do you prove this?

he doesn't have to, because even if the research is total nonsense women often submit to rape without a struggle as a form of damage limitation, or in this case because she was incapable of doing so. There are many reasons why women don't struggle when they are being raped-I once dealt with a boy who raped two senile women, neither of whom were able to struggle and probably didn't even know what was going on.

[Ackroman]

I think the pitchforks are being wielded by the neanderthals who have hounded a raped woman and everyone who opposes Evans' and Sheffield United's disgraceful behaviour.

 

I agree with you about the victim.

 

Accepting Evans is a rapist is difficult for me based on the evidence.

 

Sheffield United are allowing Evans to train with them. Or do we need a bottomless pit for people like Evans so that none are tempted to give then support?

 

by years of good published clinical/forensic reaserch undertaken by learned clinicians working with offenders and victims.

Shared consensus of opinions are used as indicators in evidence within the legal system

 

Does it happens in all cases of rape, or some?

 

The thing is Clayton is accepted as having consensual sex with her, so the court would have to accept the phenomenon did not happen.

 

If it did, the court would also have to reject the night porters evidence.

[Ackroman]

Yrs it is the state's responsibility to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. That's what happened.

Evans should not have had sex with a woman that could not say no..... do that and you get sent to orison

 

The reasons why someone can't say yes, surely they are so wide and varied that it is a dangerous precedent to set?

[WearyRhino]

The reasons why someone can't say yes, surely they are so wide and varied that it is a dangerous precedent to set?

 

Unbelievable!

[Larry the Leit]

Accepting Evans is a rapist is difficult for me based on the evidence.

 

 

You haven't seen/heard all the evidence.  However the jury have and their conclusion was a clear one. Based on your statement the prisons should be empty, save for any persons convicted where you were on jury service or sat in the public gallery for the duration of the trials.

 

I don't think that Sheffield United have done anything wrong, other than misjudge public opinion and pitiful PR.

[Dave T]

here's one or two reasons

 

she perhaps agreed to go to the hotel with him to have sex, and was in perhaps a more alert state then.

Evans was an interloper, something she hadn't bargained for.

when Evans intervened she was perhaps in a worse state than she was when agreeing with the other man to go to the hotel and have sex.

 

I'm sure there are plenty more.

This is the key difference for me (and I assume the jury).

 

I know how drink can affect you the more tired you get. I have stopped drinking at the end of the night, and then stayed awake for a few hours yet been more drunk as I am going to bed - things have become more blurry as tiredness kicks in. I am always safely at home in these instances though.

 

The woman was on cctv interacting with people and latched onto the first man, going back with him in a taxi, getting pizza, remembering that pizza. So whilst there could still be questions around how drunk she is, it would possibly be difficult for man 1 to identify that she didn't have her wits about her, she wanted to go back to the hotel and this all took quite a long time.

 

Evans simply came into the room when they were in bed, claimed he got a yes and had sex with her.

 

They are two very different things that happened, so it is quite understandable that there were different verdicts.

[Larry the Leit]

I really think that we should drag this back to whether Evans should be allowed to play football again.  Discussing the case in pointless given its complexity and the fact (probable) that none of us were in court and can really add anything to what was discussed.

 

I urge all those apologists for Evans to have a good look at themselves.  The conviction rate for rape is notoriously low, and yet the jury saw fit to convict this man.  Let's credit our twelve peers with some degree of intellect and integrity please.

[Robin Evans]

I really think that we should drag this back to whether Evans should be allowed to play football again. Discussing the case in pointless given its complexity and the fact (probable) that none of us were in court and can really add anything to what was discussed.

I urge all those apologists for Evans to have a good look at themselves. The conviction rate for rape is notoriously low, and yet the jury saw fit to convict this man. Let's credit our twelve peers with some degree of intellect and integrity please.

this

[l'angelo mysterioso]

I really think that we should drag this back to whether Evans should be allowed to play football again.  Discussing the case in pointless given its complexity and the fact (probable) that none of us were in court and can really add anything to what was discussed.

 

I urge all those apologists for Evans to have a good look at themselves.  The conviction rate for rape is notoriously low, and yet the jury saw fit to convict this man.  Let's credit our twelve peers with some degree of intellect and integrity please.

he has the right to play football again, it's the consequences, practicalities and meaning of him doing so that is the issue.

This thread has revealed some disturbing attitudes towards the crime he was convicted of.

[Ackroman]

I really think that we should drag this back to whether Evans should be allowed to play football again.  Discussing the case in pointless given its complexity and the fact (probable) that none of us were in court and can really add anything to what was discussed.

 

I urge all those apologists for Evans to have a good look at themselves.  The conviction rate for rape is notoriously low, and yet the jury saw fit to convict this man.  Let's credit our twelve peers with some degree of intellect and integrity please.

 

So you're in charge of the thread now? The last time I looked it was "Ched Evans, what's your view?"

 

...and it's pointless unless we talk about it from your perspective even though he's going to challenge the conviction one way or another? But my view on the matter is now irrelevant because you say so.......fine.

 

...and those of us uncomfortable with the verdict, in my case because I believe there's a lack of evidence, are apologists for Evans and by implication rape?....fine

 

You even attempt to be-little my own intelligence by making the gross assumption jurors are somehow imbued with intellect because of the job they have to do. Sadly for you they reflect society and are not all members of a Royal Society.

 

Thi is the irony. That you would judge me so easily...........

 

...........and how easy it is to judge others..........

 

....and to gain the support of your peers without looking at the facts.......

 

....... and to make my point so eloquently. 

[Larry the Leit]

So you're in charge of the thread now? The last time I looked it was "Ched Evans, what's your view?"

 

...and it's pointless unless we talk about it from your perspective even though he's going to challenge the conviction one way or another? But my view on the matter is now irrelevant because you say so.......fine.

 

...and those of us uncomfortable with the verdict, in my case because I believe there's a lack of evidence, are apologists for Evans and by implication rape?....fine

 

You even attempt to be-little my own intelligence by making the gross assumption jurors are somehow imbued with intellect because of the job they have to do. Sadly for you they reflect society and are not all members of a Royal Society.

 

Thi is the irony. That you would judge me so easily...........

 

...........and how easy it is to judge others..........

 

....and to gain the support of your peers without looking at the facts.......

 

....... and to make my point so eloquently. 

 

No I am not in charge of the thread, I made a suggestion of what I would be a good idea of how to frame the debate, and backed that up with what I consider to be good reasons why.  Try being a little less prissy.

 

Unless you were in court and think that the judge missed something in the summing up or can argue where you think the jury got it wrong, then I fail to see how you've anything to add.  

 

You've made the link between apologists for Evans and apologists for rape.  I am not duty bound to the respond to that.

 

I accept what you say about members of the jury to some extent, but they have at least listened to the evidence in full and are selected according to well established principles which ensure fairness.  You, as I understand it, were not a member of the jury and therefore probably haven't sat through all the evidence and cross examination.  I'll take the judgement of these twelve over your own.

[Ackroman]

Unbelievable!

Somewhat judgemental aren't we? You fit the mould very well.

[Ackroman]

No I am not in charge of the thread, I made a suggestion of what I would be a good idea of how to frame the debate, and backed that up with what I consider to be good reasons why.  Try being a little less prissy.

 

Unless you were in court and think that the judge missed something in the summing up or can argue where you think the jury got it wrong, then I fail to see how you've anything to add.  

 

You've made the link between apologists for Evans and apologists for rape.  I am not duty bound to the respond to that.

 

I accept what you say about members of the jury to some extent, but they have at least listened to the evidence in full and are selected according to well established principles which ensure fairness.  You, as I understand it, were not a member of the jury and therefore probably haven't sat through all the evidence and cross examination.  I'll take the judgement of these twelve over your own.

 

Try and be less patronising.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Somewhat judgemental aren't we? You fit the mould very well.

what mould might that be?

 

what mould do you fit into?

[Larry the Leit]

Try and be less patronising.

 

I don't agree with your opinion.  I don't see how that makes my view patronising.  

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Try and be less patronising.

now who thinks they are in charge

[Martyn Sadler]

I urge all those apologists for Evans to have a good look at themselves.

Who are the apologists for Evans?

 

I haven't seen any on this thread.

 

But there are some people asking questions about how the guilty verdict was arrived at, which is quite a different matter. As is usual in a thread like this, in doing so some people draw conclusions that may appear controversial.

 

And there are some people suggesting that he should now be able to get on with his life, while recognising that he has been convicted for rape, which I think is where you stand, and I agree.

 

But because you take that view I wouldn't accuse you of being an 'apologist' for him.

[Martyn Sadler]

he has the right to play football again, it's the consequences, practicalities and meaning of him doing so that is the issue.

This thread has revealed some disturbing attitudes towards the crime he was convicted of.

What disturbing attitudes has the thread revealed?

[Larry the Leit]

Who are the apologists for Evans?

 

I haven't seen any on this thread.

 

But there are some people asking questions about how the guilty verdict was arrived at, which is quite a different matter. As is usual in a thread like this, in doing so some people draw conclusions that may appear controversial.

 

And there are some people suggesting that he should now be able to get on with his life, while recognising that he has been convicted for rape, which I think is where you stand, and I agree.

 

But because you take that view I wouldn't accuse you of being an 'apologist' for him.

 

I'm not going to list them Martyn, but I do recognise that you may have something of a point.  I strongly suspect, and this is not evidenced based, that some people on this thread think he did nothing if anything wrong.  It's a very wide spectrum we have on here Marrtyn, which is what always draws me in.  There are often a wide range of views expressed, we even had somebody expressing a view a couple of weeks ago that viewing sexual images of images of children wasn't a problem as they weren't doing the actual abuse.

 

You are correct in your assessment of my view, and I don't think that anyone would read this thread and draw the conclusion that I was an apologist for him. I think it's quite feasible that it's possible to read this thread and form that views in relation to others though.

[gingerjon]

there are some people asking questions about how the guilty verdict was arrived at, which is quite a different matter. 

 

This from someone who has locked threads because people were disagreeing with a court verdict.

[gingerjon]

, we even had somebody expressing a view a couple of weeks ago that viewing sexual images of images of children wasn't a problem as they weren't doing the actual abuse.

 

You need to do better than that.

 

It was believing that someone who had deliberately found and then paid for images of children being sexually abused had done nothing wrong.

[Ackroman]

I don't agree with your opinion.  I don't see how that makes my view patronising.  

 

so saying discussing the case is pointless isn't patonising? Sorry I have to point this out but it is. I never made a judgement on you but you accuse me of being prissy so I'm just playing you at your own game.

 

On the whole it's clear that in a very British fashion, the mob rules. I have an opinion and for not fitting in with the opinion of the majority, I have already been associated with having a disturbing attitude and being an apologist for a criminal. 

 

So many of you have rushed to the flag without really questioning the issues like an AOB forum should, we pick a side and if we are not on that side, we have odious attitudes, we condone the behaviour in question.

 

IMO We should rotate the issues 360 degrees, that's what makes it interesting but instead we are judged. I have therefore wasted my time.