Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Will This Bloke Ever Work Again?
93 Answers
http://
It is after all difficult for any criminal to get work so I guess he's going to struggle.
It is after all difficult for any criminal to get work so I guess he's going to struggle.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Very possibly, Prudie -- but in this case the debate is, I think, not so much about what happened (at no point has Evans denied having sex with the victim) but about whether it constituted rape. He has argued that she consented. The jury took the view that she was in fact incapable of consent, and that Evans should have recognised this, and therefore that any sex between them was legally rape.
If Ched Evans cannot at least accept that rape includes sex with someone who is incapable of consent, then he very much doesn't know best. So far he does not appear to have conceded this point, maintains that the victim said "yes", and has overlooked or ignored the fact that there is more to rape in current law than whether or not the complainant says "no".
If Ched Evans cannot at least accept that rape includes sex with someone who is incapable of consent, then he very much doesn't know best. So far he does not appear to have conceded this point, maintains that the victim said "yes", and has overlooked or ignored the fact that there is more to rape in current law than whether or not the complainant says "no".
Yes Slapshot, it is.
But he needs to work, so the question is should he work in a highly paid job in the public eye?
I dont think there is any law against it.
As far as I can see, if a sponsor and a club are happy then he can be back in pro footbal. they would have to be pretty suicidal to employ him though in my opinion.
But he needs to work, so the question is should he work in a highly paid job in the public eye?
I dont think there is any law against it.
As far as I can see, if a sponsor and a club are happy then he can be back in pro footbal. they would have to be pretty suicidal to employ him though in my opinion.
Being present when events take place doesn't necessarily mean you "know better" than someone who wasn't. The jury has access to multiple eyewitness accounts, along with forensic evidence, etc., and this is something that merely being there at the time doesn't give you.
And anyway this concept that Ched Evans knows best also relies on the account he's presenting being the honest and truthful one, and not a complete or partial fabrication designed to hide what actually happened.
Juries are an important part of the ludicial system, perhaps the most important part. If justice can only be meted out by those who were there then perhaps in future we should just ask Ched Evans or any other suspected criminal if they did it or not. And then, when they say "no", we should say "Oh well, I guess you'd know best, off you trot then"...
And anyway this concept that Ched Evans knows best also relies on the account he's presenting being the honest and truthful one, and not a complete or partial fabrication designed to hide what actually happened.
Juries are an important part of the ludicial system, perhaps the most important part. If justice can only be meted out by those who were there then perhaps in future we should just ask Ched Evans or any other suspected criminal if they did it or not. And then, when they say "no", we should say "Oh well, I guess you'd know best, off you trot then"...
Sorry ludwig I now see you got there first.
It is this word Rapist that has got everyone on his back, it is time there were different scales of rape.
A person who pounces on someone one and threatens their victim with say a knife, and then after his evil deed beats his poor victim up, can't be on the same scale to say a husband who engages in sexual intercourse against his wife's wishes at that particular time, or a drunken male and a drunken female, where the female decides she has had enough and asks her partner to stop, but he proves to be more drunken than her and doesn't.
Both these scenarios are still lawfully rape, but are they less serious than the first one?
It is this word Rapist that has got everyone on his back, it is time there were different scales of rape.
A person who pounces on someone one and threatens their victim with say a knife, and then after his evil deed beats his poor victim up, can't be on the same scale to say a husband who engages in sexual intercourse against his wife's wishes at that particular time, or a drunken male and a drunken female, where the female decides she has had enough and asks her partner to stop, but he proves to be more drunken than her and doesn't.
Both these scenarios are still lawfully rape, but are they less serious than the first one?
Let's face it, if children are expected to look up to footballers whom they supposedly adore and see them as role models we can expect them to have 3 on 1 sex whilst filming it, kill young children whilst drink-driving, kill a couple, leave the scene and go into hiding whilst also drink-driving, have extra marital affairs with their sisters in law and generally beat up on women.
Whilst not excusing Evans in any way, I'm of the Judy Finnegan viewpoint in that he committed his crime whilst drunk(no excuse I know) as did the majority of the other miscreants I've alluded to, he didn't actively seek out this woman whilst carrying a knife and a mask and he's being pilloried far beyond what he ought to IMHO.
Whilst not excusing Evans in any way, I'm of the Judy Finnegan viewpoint in that he committed his crime whilst drunk(no excuse I know) as did the majority of the other miscreants I've alluded to, he didn't actively seek out this woman whilst carrying a knife and a mask and he's being pilloried far beyond what he ought to IMHO.
I'm unclear about how the jury could decide whe was sober enough to consent to sex with one man but too drunk to consent to sex with the other.
I'm nost saying they were wrong, just that I don't know what their rationale was.
In particular, I don't think they were necessarily saying he was lying. They must have concluded, however, that he misjudged the situation and failed to realise how drunk she was.
But that comes down to a judgment call, not an assessment of facts. So it's not at all impossible that the jury, who weren't there, got it wrong; such things have happened. For his part, he is so convinced of his innocence that he risks never working again, by refusing to show remorse for something he thinks he hasn't done.
Well, we'll see what else comes out.
I'm nost saying they were wrong, just that I don't know what their rationale was.
In particular, I don't think they were necessarily saying he was lying. They must have concluded, however, that he misjudged the situation and failed to realise how drunk she was.
But that comes down to a judgment call, not an assessment of facts. So it's not at all impossible that the jury, who weren't there, got it wrong; such things have happened. For his part, he is so convinced of his innocence that he risks never working again, by refusing to show remorse for something he thinks he hasn't done.
Well, we'll see what else comes out.
There has already been one appeal against the conviction and one of the grounds was the apparent inconsistency between one guy being acquitted and the other not. In the end, the appeal was unsuccessful, it being found that there was no inconsistency as the circumstances surrounding the two stories were very different:
McDonald met the victim on the street, and they got to chatting, spent some short time together, then got into a taxi and went to the hotel. His testimony says that the conversation started with something like "where are you going [girl]?" "where are YOU going?", and then things sort of snowballed into their having sex. It's claimed to be consensual, or at least as consensual as possible. At any rate, there are sufficient grounds to doubt that it was rape and a "not guilty" verdict" probably reflects that doubt.
On the other hand, the first time Ched Evans met or saw the victim was when she was naked in bed with the other guy. He'd come over to the room in response to a text inviting him there, and knew before he entered that there was "a bird" inside the room, and that they were having sex. When asked if Evnas could join in the victim apparently said yes, and so he did, and...
Regardless of the merits of the conviction of Evans, it is at least clear that the case against him, and the case that was made against McDonald, are different cases in many circumstances. The jury may well have found that the woman was able to consent to sex with the first man she met, but was in too vulnerable a position to say no to sex with the second man, and so Ched Evans could well be found guilty while clearing McDonald.
See:
https:/
the above is my summary of why there could be two different verdicts, the relevant paragraph in the document above says:
"Given that direction, it was open to the jury to convict both defendants, to acquit both defendants, or to convict one and not the other defendant. That was the point of a joint trial in which separate verdicts were to be returned. It was open to the jury to consider that even if the complainant did not, in fact, consent to sexual intercourse with either of the two men, that in the light of his part in what happened -- the meeting in the street and so on -- McDonald may reasonably have believed that the complainant had consented to sexual activity with him, and at the same time concluded that the applicant knew perfectly well that she had not consented to sexual activity with him (the applicant). The circumstances in which each of the two men came to be involved in the sexual activity was quite different; so indeed were the circumstances in which they left her. Those were matters entirely open to the jury; there was no inconsistency."
(applicant = Chedwyn Evans).
McDonald met the victim on the street, and they got to chatting, spent some short time together, then got into a taxi and went to the hotel. His testimony says that the conversation started with something like "where are you going [girl]?" "where are YOU going?", and then things sort of snowballed into their having sex. It's claimed to be consensual, or at least as consensual as possible. At any rate, there are sufficient grounds to doubt that it was rape and a "not guilty" verdict" probably reflects that doubt.
On the other hand, the first time Ched Evans met or saw the victim was when she was naked in bed with the other guy. He'd come over to the room in response to a text inviting him there, and knew before he entered that there was "a bird" inside the room, and that they were having sex. When asked if Evnas could join in the victim apparently said yes, and so he did, and...
Regardless of the merits of the conviction of Evans, it is at least clear that the case against him, and the case that was made against McDonald, are different cases in many circumstances. The jury may well have found that the woman was able to consent to sex with the first man she met, but was in too vulnerable a position to say no to sex with the second man, and so Ched Evans could well be found guilty while clearing McDonald.
See:
https:/
the above is my summary of why there could be two different verdicts, the relevant paragraph in the document above says:
"Given that direction, it was open to the jury to convict both defendants, to acquit both defendants, or to convict one and not the other defendant. That was the point of a joint trial in which separate verdicts were to be returned. It was open to the jury to consider that even if the complainant did not, in fact, consent to sexual intercourse with either of the two men, that in the light of his part in what happened -- the meeting in the street and so on -- McDonald may reasonably have believed that the complainant had consented to sexual activity with him, and at the same time concluded that the applicant knew perfectly well that she had not consented to sexual activity with him (the applicant). The circumstances in which each of the two men came to be involved in the sexual activity was quite different; so indeed were the circumstances in which they left her. Those were matters entirely open to the jury; there was no inconsistency."
(applicant = Chedwyn Evans).
Latest Posts
Up *** Creek With A Lng Paddle
News2 mins ago
Crosswords3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.