Ched Evans [Confirmed]

[8lade]

Time for this thread to be locked?

 

[8lade]

It's important because just because a girl is intoxicated doesn't mean that the man couldn't have a reasonable belief that she is able to and has given him consent.
In this case I believe that is one of the major differences between the two defendants testimony.

Either she was capable of consenting or not, if she consented but during the journey to the motel became incapable of consent it would become rape (but there is evidence to support this didn't happen). So effectively what is being said is that between the 2 men having sex with her she became incapable of giving consent. Given that both defendants said she was capable and the victim said she can't remember there really wasn't any evidence. For this decision to have been correct she would have had to have been capable of consent before McDonald had sex but become further inebriated (a possibility) or have passed out before Evans started. There was no evidence to support this.

 

[Houston_Blade]

I'm raising my children as young followers of the Ched. Start them early, I say. I refer to them collectively as Mini Cheddars.

Make sure you show them how a fire door works at a young age, maybe have a few family holidays to the travelodge in Rhyl.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Either she was capable of consenting or not, if she consented but during the journey to the motel became incapable of consent it would become rape (but there is evidence to support this didn't happen). So effectively what is being said is that between the 2 men having sex with her she became incapable of giving consent. Given that both defendants said she was capable and the victim said she can't remember there really wasn't any evidence. For this decision to have been correct she would have had to have been capable of consent before McDonald had sex but become further inebriated (a possibility) or have passed out before Evans started. There was no evidence to support this.

I don't agree with your statements or what you've concluded above, but as I've said, and you've said yourself, it's been done to death. Time to let it lie.

 

[Charlieblade]

When he retires think he would be a great addition to our coaching staff.

Would help our strikers, knows and cares about the club and would set our younger players along the right path.

I have to disagree. As a professional footballer, he should never has ever put himself anywhere near that situation, in those circumstances. Like it or not, he has a moral obligation to do the right thing. I don’t want my kids idolizing his football skills if that is his idea of acceptable conduct in a social situation with any woman.
The trial and verdict pale into insignificance when you consider the responsibility his job carries.
All could have been avoided, if he stayed out of that situation in the first place.

 

[Houston_Blade]

I have to disagree. As a professional footballer, he should never has ever put himself anywhere near that situation, in those circumstances. Like it or not, he has a moral obligation to do the right thing. I don’t want my kids idolizing his football skills if that is his idea of acceptable conduct in a social situation with any woman.
The trial and verdict pale into insignificance when you consider the responsibility his job carries.
All could have been avoided, if he stayed out of that situation in the first place.

I don't think the rules on behaving like a morally upstanding citizen only apply to professional footballers. The behaviour is bad whether he earns £12 an hour cleaning bogs or £20k a week as a footballer. It's just the £20k a week job and the lifestyle that goes with it that gave him the idea he could behave like he did unfortunately.

 

[Addison]

Look, we can speculate about her motives and behaviour and redo the whole Ched saga again but the facts will remain that she had to leave home and change her identity. Nobody won in the Ched saga. Her life was ruined, his life was ruined, there was cost to the taxpayer, the legal system has come out looking confused. I doubt anyone will disagree that Ched suffered the most by a distance, but everybody was worse off for this.

I agree with your sensible comments. Two lives were badly affected. The fact was and still is a girl who went to report the loss of a handbag to the Police was persuaded by the CPS to pursue a rape claim that radically changed her life. Evans was not helped by his agent insisting on using solicitors who were not well versed in dealing with criminal cases.

I disagree though with your comment that the legal system has come out looking confused. This is a view promoted by various interest groups post Evans acquittal. The were errors made by Evans Counsel in the first trial where he did not call evidence that would have supported the assertion the girl gave consent this in effect led to his conviction.

The Law was applied correctly in determining that the girls previous sexual history could be heard at the second trial. Whilst there are protections in law on this point under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 the House of Lords did determine in previous cases that ;

"if interpreted too strictly, has the potential to interfere with the fairness of a trial by forcing judges to exclude relevant and admissible evidence."

It was found at the second Appeal Hearing that if the two witnesses who came forward had been heard at the first trial then this had the potential to affect the original decision made by the Jury. That was the reason given for a retrial. Any lay man reading the somewhat graphic accounts in the witness statements contained within the Appeal Court Judgement which accorded with Evans account of the evening in question would be able to deduce why the Appeal Judges made this ruling.

Ched Evans was acquitted of rape in the second trial as the Jury concluded that the girl in question did give consent to sexual intercourse on the night in question. They took less than two hours to reach this conclusion which suggests the new evidence was a compelling reason for reaching this decision.

Evans polarises opinion and too many people try to re write the facts of the case to support their point of view. As far as Sheffield United are concerned he is now history and we should look forward not back.

 

[Charlieblade]

I don't think the rules on behaving like a morally upstanding citizen only apply to professional footballers. The behaviour is bad whether he earns £12 an hour cleaning bogs or £20k a week as a footballer. It's just the £20k a week job and the lifestyle that goes with it that gave him the idea he could behave like he did unfortunately.

I agree, but his status as a footballer still confers an expected standard of good behavior on him.
The consequences for him, his then fiancé, and the reputation of the club, should stand as a warning to all men, but especially young footballers, who could have so easily avoided those consequences.

 

[Carlton Blade]

This thread

 

[FMBlade1]

I have to disagree. As a professional footballer, he should never has ever put himself anywhere near that situation, in those circumstances. Like it or not, he has a moral obligation to do the right thing. I don’t want my kids idolizing his football skills if that is his idea of acceptable conduct in a social situation with any woman.
The trial and verdict pale into insignificance when you consider the responsibility his job carries.
All could have been avoided, if he stayed out of that situation in the first place.

 

[Charlieblade]

View attachment 84952

Sorry I must have missed the sarcasm smiley at the end of your original post .......

 

[ormester]

I have to disagree. As a professional footballer, he should never has ever put himself anywhere near that situation, in those circumstances. Like it or not, he has a moral obligation to do the right thing. I don’t want my kids idolizing his football skills if that is his idea of acceptable conduct in a social situation with any woman.
The trial and verdict pale into insignificance when you consider the responsibility his job carries.
All could have been avoided, if he stayed out of that situation in the first place.

Exactly

 

[ormester]

The survivor in this case was intoxicated, which meant she couldn't consent.

But was OK to pick a pizza box up so perfectly no wobble

 

[coaxingstar71]

I have to disagree. As a professional footballer, he should never has ever put himself anywhere near that situation, in those circumstances. Like it or not, he has a moral obligation to do the right thing. I don’t want my kids idolizing his football skills if that is his idea of acceptable conduct in a social situation with any woman.
The trial and verdict pale into insignificance when you consider the responsibility his job carries.
All could have been avoided, if he stayed out of that situation in the first place.

Agree - he may not have been guilty of rape but he was guilty of being a complete moron, letting the club and fans down, not to mention his girlfriend and family.

 

[8lade]

if that is his idea of acceptable conduct in a social situation with any woman.

The behaviour is bad

Careful, careful, careful. Who is to decide what is acceptable and what isn't? My mother was ashamed of me because I was 'living in sin'. I'm not pointing the finger but a bet a few others on here do too

 

[Brian Blessed]

The survivor in this case was intoxicated, which meant she couldn't consent.

But was OK to pick a pizza box up so perfectly no wobble

She could pick up a pizza box, which made it perfectly acceptable for Evans to take it on himself to go round and shag the bird his mate had just pulled.

 

[Sheff de party]

Either she was capable of consenting or not, if she consented but during the journey to the motel became incapable of consent it would become rape (but there is evidence to support this didn't happen). So effectively what is being said is that between the 2 men having sex with her she became incapable of giving consent. Given that both defendants said she was capable and the victim said she can't remember there really wasn't any evidence. For this decision to have been correct she would have had to have been capable of consent before McDonald had sex but become further inebriated (a possibility) or have passed out before Evans started. There was no evidence to support this.

This isn’t quite right. For it to be rape, the person has to not consent (including being too drunk too) AND you have to not reasonably believe they were consenting.

Therefore if she was too drunk (which the prosecution must prove), and sex took place, the defendant must then show he reasonably believe she consented.

For Clayton, he could say well she came up to me on a night out and said she’s coming back to a hotel room with me and wanted to have sex. She couldn’t consent (the Crown proved) but he reasonably believed she did (he could prove). Not guilty.

Ched redirected a taxi and let himself in to a hotel room whereupon he said Clayton asked her and she said yes - Clayton said Ched asked her and she said yes. If she said yes, that’s reasonable belief of consent, so the jury must have concluded Ched was lying. Guilty.

It is possible to have sex with someone who isn’t consenting if you reasonably believe they are and get acquitted. It is also possible to think you are raping someone but in their mind they’re consenting and you’ll be acquitted.

 

[Sheff de party]

massive credit for the leap from Ched Evans to Keir Starmer there

No it’s not. The original post I replied to said this was about women wanting to up the rape conviction.

The head of the CPS (Director of Public Prosecutions) was a man. It’s a directly relevant point.

 

[1889]

Makes no sense that paragraph!
#105 reads like English

Yeah, agreed, much better. Unfortunately there are a significant number of men incorrectly accused of rape every single weekend around the UK.

Seems Nesh Blade would like to see them all convicted on that basis alone

 

[Sheff de party]

I just wanted to say your statement is very leading. He didn’t barge into anything, that implies he forced his way into the room, he was invited by them both.
Also the girl didn’t remember (or at least was very vague with her recollection) because she was very drunk the night before. I don’t know because I wasn’t there but the evidence in court stated that she was conscience at the time. The original conviction was based on her conscience state being not of sound body or mind. She was deemed too intoxicated to consent.

I’m afraid this isn’t true. He got a text from Clayton and redirected his taxi to the hotel. Then he went to Reception, got another key card made (as he’d paid for the room) and let himself into the room.

Barged is a fair assessment of that behaviour.

They couldn’t even agree who’d asked her if he could join in when he arrived. No wonder they thought he was lying.

 

[Sheff de party]

Yea she seemed to have a problem with her memory as she did against the rugby player before

I would argue this is irrelevant but the CCRC obviously disagreed.

 

[Sheff de party]

Yeah, agreed, much better. Unfortunately there are a significant number of men incorrectly accused of rape every single weekend around the UK.

Seems Nesh Blade would like to see them all convicted on that basis

Are there? How many? I bet it's a lot lower than the amount that get away with it.

In any case, I appreciate there's a strong argument this should never have got to trial. My overall viewpoint was he's a despicable individual and fell far below the standards we should expect from one of our players. The club handled it badly.

 

[PokerBlade]

I agree with your sensible comments. Two lives were badly affected. The fact was and still is a girl who went to report the loss of a handbag to the Police was persuaded by the CPS to pursue a rape claim that radically changed her life. Evans was not helped by his agent insisting on using solicitors who were not well versed in dealing with criminal cases.

I disagree though with your comment that the legal system has come out looking confused. This is a view promoted by various interest groups post Evans acquittal. The were errors made by Evans Counsel in the first trial where he did not call evidence that would have supported the assertion the girl gave consent this in effect led to his conviction.

The Law was applied correctly in determining that the girls previous sexual history could be heard at the second trial. Whilst there are protections in law on this point under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 the House of Lords did determine in previous cases that ;

"if interpreted too strictly, has the potential to interfere with the fairness of a trial by forcing judges to exclude relevant and admissible evidence."

It was found at the second Appeal Hearing that if the two witnesses who came forward had been heard at the first trial then this had the potential to affect the original decision made by the Jury. That was the reason given for a retrial. Any lay man reading the somewhat graphic accounts in the witness statements contained within the Appeal Court Judgement which accorded with Evans account of the evening in question would be able to deduce why the Appeal Judges made this ruling.

Ched Evans was acquitted of rape in the second trial as the Jury concluded that the girl in question did give consent to sexual intercourse on the night in question. They took less than two hours to reach this conclusion which suggests the new evidence was a compelling reason for reaching this decision.

Evans polarises opinion and too many people try to re write the facts of the case to support their point of view. As far as Sheffield United are concerned he is now history and we should look forward not back.

I'll be more clear, when I say the legal system came out looking confused I do mean the appearance of this case and the discussion that's surrounded it. I don't mean a direct criticism of the judges or jury and such, although I do have my issues with the legal system as a whole. Even now, this thread has posters that don't understand how one could be convicted and the other cleared. That's not a failure of the courts per se, but it is a bad sign for the public understanding of a very important issue.

 

[Gavlar]

This thread is so 2020

 

[georgebernardshaw]

This thread is so 2020

....and it’s still only 17.01 now, ffs, get rid of this old bag of shite.

 

[dc_blade]

I refer to them collectively as Mini Cheddars.

“Chedophiles” has a ring to it, have you considered that instead?

 

[Yellarbellyblade]

 

[JJ Sefton]

My overall viewpoint was he's a despicable individual and fell far below the standards we should expect from one of our players.

I don't think anyone has ever denied Ched's a bit of a rogue.

 

[8lade]

Excellent.
But the judge said she wanted tea, so that was ok for Mcdonald to give her the cup of tea.
This explains my point perfectly.

 

[TJB.]