Ched Evans

[Larry the Leit]

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.

 

My apologies.  You are correct.

 

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.

 

I think discussing the evidence presented in court is pointless.  I really do.  Unless you're prepared to apply the same degree of scrutiny to all of it and not just fragments of it which may support one particular argument.

 

I see no evidence of mob rule. 

 

I have said now repeatedly why I think we shouldn't concentrate on the verdict.  I think that's a fair point of view to take, and I've said why.  You don't agree, then that's fine, but you haven't countered my argument as to why I think the opposite.  You've not even attempted.

 

And let's get it clear, you've not been called or labeled as an apologist by me or any other poster from what I can see.  

[l'angelo mysterioso]

What disturbing attitudes has the thread revealed?

the threats to Jessica Ennis for a start.

Then a considerable amount of the contribution of Wolford.

Ackroman's comments about there being no sign of a struggle

 

will that do?

[Robin Evans]

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.

I'm not sure anyone has done that in this instant but I could (but won't) cite many instances where this is the case.

Largely I'm of the view the Larry posts. A jury has seen and heard all of the evidence to make an informed decision more than any of us on here could hope to do.

He's convicted beyond ALL REASONABLE DOUBT. There jury agreed. He's a rapist.

You of course have your reasons for believing the jury made a decision that wasn't sound. I oppose your view. C'est la vie.....

[Ackroman]

the threats to Jessica Ennis for a start.

Then a considerable amount of the contribution of Wolford.

Ackroman's comments about there being no sign of a struggle

 

will that do?

 

It's a fact. Why is that a disturbing attitude?

 

FFS I made it absolutely expressly clear it is not my opinion on Evans or rape. Just the facts, the evidence. 

[Martyn Sadler]

the threats to Jessica Ennis for a start.

Then a considerable amount of the contribution of Wolford.

Ackroman's comments about there being no sign of a struggle

 

will that do?

Who on here has threatened Jessica Ennis?

 

What has Wolford said on this thread that is "disturbing"?

 

And didn't the evidence in court back up the fact that there hadn't been a struggle? I don't think the accusation was that there had been a struggle. I think it was rather that the woman who was raped was drunk and was virtually incapable of struggling.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

It's a fact. Why is that a disturbing attitude?

 

FFS I made it absolutely expressly clear it is not my opinion on Evans or rape. Just the facts, the evidence. 

because it is an irrelevant fact.

a red herring, call it what you like.

The fact that there was no sign of a struggle has nothing to do with anything, same with your comment about there being no evidence of sexual intercourse-qv.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Who on here has threatened Jessica Ennis?

 

What has Wolford said on this thread that is "disturbing"?

 

And didn't the evidence in court back up the fact that there hadn't been a struggle? I don't think the accusation was that there had been a struggle. I think it was rather that the woman who was raped was drunk and was virtually incapable of struggling.

nobody. John M introduced it to the thread via a link: see his post.

 

I'll leave Wolford's outp[ourings out of it, since you seem to want me to trawl through them.

 

then why did Ackroman introduce it to the discussion? Do you believe he didn't think it had any bearing on the incident?

[Ackroman]

because it is an irrelevant fact.

a red herring, call it what you like.

The fact that there was no sign of a struggle has nothing to do with anything, same with your comment about there being no evidence of sexual intercourse-qv.

 

So in case where there is no physical evidence of rape it is irrelevant? 

[l'angelo mysterioso]

So in case where there is no physical evidence of rape it is irrelevant? 

in that because there was no sign of a struggle it doesn't mean that someone was raped.

[Larry the Leit]

There being no sign of a struggle is surely only relevant if a struggle is alleged.  Even then it would be circumstantial if there was an opportunity to remove any sign of alleged struggle.

 

I agree with Frank, it's a distraction.

[Ackroman]

in that because there was no sign of a struggle it doesn't mean that someone was raped.

I assume you mean wasn't.

 

I cannot disagree with your comment but by equal measure because there was no sign of a struggle or evidence of intercourse you need to be absolutely sure a rape took place.

[Larry the Leit]

Since questioning the evidence now seems par for the course, I'd lay money that she didn't pee herself and that somebody else peed on her.

[chuffer]

the sign of a struggle is irrelevant (look at drug/date rapes for example)

 

the issue of evidence of intercourse surely isn't even in dispute in this case?.......all parties seem to acknowledge that it took place, therefore evidence wouldn't be needed to prove/disprove it?

[Ackroman]

There being no sign of a struggle is surely only relevant if a struggle is alleged.  Even then it would be circumstantial if there was an opportunity to remove any sign of alleged struggle.

 

I agree with Frank, it's a distraction.

 

A distraction because it proves nothing or doesn't prove it didn't happen?

 

For me this is very important. It goes beyond this case, if we cannot disprove an accusation  is it therefore true? 

[Larry the Leit]

A distraction because it proves nothing or doesn't prove it didn't happen?

 

For me this is very important. It goes beyond this case, if we cannot disprove an accusation  is it therefore true? 

 

A distraction because no struggle appears to have been alleged, and even if it were there would appear to have been ample time to have cleared any evidence of a struggle away i.e. whilst the victim was asleep.  

[chuffer]

And didn't the evidence in court back up the fact that there hadn't been a struggle? I don't think the accusation was that there had been a struggle. I think it was rather that the woman who was raped was drunk and was virtually incapable of struggling.

 

Yes, though it reads that earlier intercourse with another was apparently consensual and so had enough wits about her at that point (i.e. she was still awake)

[Larry the Leit]

One thing that has struck me as strange is the way that Ched Evans' girlfriend has stood by him.  I assume that she accepts his protestation against his conviction for rape, but she must at the very least be a very forgiving person.  Even if she accepts his version of events, she's now with a man who had sex with an extremely drunken woman in a hotel room soon after she met him, and shortly after she'd had sex with his friend.

 

How many of us would expect our partners to be so forgiving?

[WearyRhino]

What disturbing attitudes has the thread revealed?

 

Why am I not surprised that you cannot see them. There are disturbing attitudes that verge on being apologist for Evans specifically and rape, under specific circumstances, more generally - let's be clear No means NO, and if there is no consent for whatever reason, that means NO too.

[Martyn Sadler]

One thing that has struck me as strange is the way that Ched Evans' girlfriend has stood by him.  I assume that she accepts his protestation against his conviction for rape, but she must at the very least be a very forgiving person.  Even if she accepts his version of events, she's now with a man who had sex with an extremely drunken woman in a hotel room soon after she met him, and shortly after she'd had sex with his friend.

 

How many of us would expect our partners to be so forgiving?

I do agree with you about that.

[Martyn Sadler]

Why am I not surprised that you cannot see them. There are disturbing attitudes that verge on being apologist for Evans specifically and rape, under specific circumstances, more generally - let's be clear No means NO, and if there is no consent for whatever reason, that means NO too.

I don't think anyone thinks that the word 'no' means anything other than 'NO!'

 

There is no verging on anything else.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

I assume you mean wasn't.

 

I cannot disagree with your comment but by equal measure because there was no sign of a struggle or evidence of intercourse you need to be absolutely sure a rape took place.

correct I meant that.

 

you have to be sure beyond reasonable doubt. The jury was convinced of this. It's the way the system works.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

A distraction because it proves nothing or doesn't prove it didn't happen?

 

For me this is very important. It goes beyond this case, if we cannot disprove an accusation  is it therefore true? 

a distraction because it is irrelevant

and because intentionally or otherwise you could be implying the offence didn't take place-repeat intentionally or otherwise and could, that's could be implying.

[ckn]

I think some people miss the point...  If I, when relatively sober, am all over someone, we're looking like we're going to go off and do things then we both get absolutely sloshed then there's a hint of implied consent there, enough to put reasonable doubt in the jury's mind, i.e. the acquittal for the other person.  Evans didn't have that prior implied consent, he just did his bit while the victim had no capacity to give any consent be it implicit or explicit.  For me, even with the tiny snippet of evidence that's been reported officially, I can see why a jury would convict.

[ckn]

I also believe the rehabilitation of offenders situation has changed.It ain't no more.

I know this because an individual was attempting to get into the USA to work but was refused - despite Eric Cantona and the ex- Mrs Cole having convictions for assault but being allowed,to work,in the USA.

 

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not clear the crime from the record, it's always there, you just are able to hide it from most people in the UK who have no legitimate business knowing about it.  When it comes to visas for any other country you should disclose any crime whether it's covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act or not.  The online visa waiver thing for the US these days specifically states that the act does not apply to them, or it did last year when I filled the thing in anyway for my trip out there.

 

If you're going for a job in the UK where there's an exemption from the Act then you could be 65 and will still have to disclose a crime committed when you were 18.

[Larry the Leit]

I think some people miss the point...  If I, when relatively sober, am all over someone, we're looking like we're going to go off and do things then we both get absolutely sloshed then there's a hint of implied consent there, enough to put reasonable doubt in the jury's mind, i.e. the acquittal for the other person.  Evans didn't have that prior implied consent, he just did his bit while the victim had no capacity to give any consent be it implicit or explicit.  For me, even with the tiny snippet of evidence that's been reported officially, I can see why a jury would convict.

 

I agree with your assessment of the situation, but I am disturbed by the reference to you being hypothetically aroused.  Please don't ever do to this again.