Today I'm angry about.....

[Beefheart]

What, hypothetically of course, if it was Lionel Messi instead of Ched Evans? Would some people be less bothered about the rape conviction?

[Prufrock]

Spot on!

Surely you. Pru, should believe in the possibility of rehabilitation and reintegration into society. Why should his chosen trade be denied him? Should professional athletes be penalized or held to higher standards because they are hero-worshipped by the young, while the plumber hoboh mentioned is free to carry on his trade? Just asking.

I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed by law or rule to play football again. Sheff Utd should, and are, free to re-hire him; I just think they shouldn't. There's a subtle, but important distinction. I thought Charlie Webster was excellent on Newsnight the other night addressing why she felt he shouldn't be rehired. I wholly agree that their position as role-models means it's different. It's not the same, IMO, as a job as a plumber. 10 year-old kids don't run around their local park pretending to be the local plumber and that is a hugely important consideration for me, not as a reason why Ched Evans shouldn't play football, but for why Sheff Utd shouldn't want him to play for them and their fans. I also thought she was brilliant at exposing the Sheff Utd board for being ridiculously craven on this.

I don't agree with, but understand the argument that he's done his time so should be free to resume his career, and I'd also understand if they said they were letting him train with them until the outcome of the Criminal Cases Review Commission investigation was know. They haven't made a clear statement either way, first denying he was coming back, then admitting he was training with them. If they at least came out with one of the first two I could respect them if not agree.

[Harry Genshaw]

Yeah, I get that. Easy to see why potential employers would shy away and in this case, with sponsors falling over each other to distance themselves from the club, his chances of being re employed there look doomed. I had no idea though,that he'd upset the lovely Jessica Ennis too. He really has had it, if that's the case!

I don't remember any talk of sponsor problems when Lee Hughes was released and that was pretty controversial at the time iirc.

[Worthy4England]

Realistically little kids probably don't run round pretending to be Ched Evans...

[Prufrock]

When I was a kid I ran around pretending to be Michael Johansen. I'm not suggesting Smurf was a rapist, rather that players don't need to be Ronaldo or Messi to be idolised. I coached a kid once who, every time he scored in training, kept shouting out that he was some bloke I'd never heard off. Googled him and he was a Chorley striker.

Running at nearly 1 goal in every 2, there'll be plenty kids in Sheffield that were pretending they were Ched Evans.

[Worthy4England]

When I was a kid I ran around pretending to be Michael Johansen. I'm not suggesting Smurf was a rapist, rather that players don't need to be Ronaldo or Messi to be idolised. I coached a kid once who, every time he scored in training, kept shouting out that he was some bloke I'd never heard off. Googled him and he was a Chorley striker.

Running at nearly 1 goal in every 2, there'll be plenty kids in Sheffield that were pretending they were Ched Evans.

Yeah, but you've always been a bit strange...

The only reason they'd pretend to be Ched Evans in Sheffield, is to prepare themselves for nights on the piss in Rotherham.

[LeverEnd]

Ched Evans was a goalscoring hero, he would certainly have affected lots of kids and if he comes back and does the same the temptation is there to go along with the 'she was a money-grubbing slag' stuff that went round from some on twitter. That could certainly affect the way some lads think in the future, so I don't think the role model/public figure argument is being overstated at all. the plumber comparison just doesn't work for me.
As for the 'both or neither' argument, there seems no doubt that she went back voluntarily with Donaldson. Evans turned up later, not at her instigation, and when she was in a vulnerable position. His and his friends' behaviour was disgusting, and it's quite feasible that one could be convicted and not the other, although Donaldson walking out makes him look like a horrible nice person as well.
I'm of the same opinion as many, a convicted rapist should not be prevented from working, but I wouldn't want him at my club.
Having said all that, I'm really not convinced by the conviction having read the sentencing notes. It seems to have come down to how drunk she was. If she'd been carried into the hotel over one of their shoulders yes, but I've watched the footage and she walks in OK, if a bit pissed. I just don't see how a jury can say beyond reasonable doubt that she was too drunk to consent. I think a lot of people look at his behaviour, are understandably disgusted, and that they may want it to be true that he's a rapist.
the other thing is that the CCRC initially said they would look at it in due course (2017 was mentioned), but then fast-tracked it after representations from his legal team. I don't know if thy want rid quickly because of the media exposure, or if it's because they've been presented with something that they are taking very seriously. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it overturned.

[Prufrock]

When I was a kid I ran around pretending to be Michael Johansen. I'm not suggesting Smurf was a rapist, rather that players don't need to be Ronaldo or Messi to be idolised. I coached a kid once who, every time he scored in training, kept shouting out that he was some bloke I'd never heard off. Googled him and he was a Chorley striker.

Running at nearly 1 goal in every 2, there'll be plenty kids in Sheffield that were pretending they were Ched Evans.

Yeah, but you've always been a bit strange...

The only reason they'd pretend to be Ched Evans in Sheffield, is to prepare themselves for nights on the piss in Rotherham.

Ha!

My experience is that kids idolise the heroes of their team, even in the lower leagues, and try to imitate what they do. We had a couple of our U8s (United fans, no surprise) start diving! Was piss funny tbf, coz they sucked at it, but they certainly hadn't been taught that by us! (Though there were stories on the grapevine of one big North West club teaching their academy kids how to "safely fall" - but I digress).

[Prufrock]

Ched Evans was a goalscoring hero, he would certainly have affected lots of kids and if he comes back and does the same the temptation is there to go along with the 'she was a money-grubbing slag' stuff that went round from some on twitter. That could certainly affect the way some lads think in the future, so I don't think the role model/public figure argument is being overstated at all. the plumber comparison just doesn't work for me.
As for the 'both or neither' argument, there seems no doubt that she went back voluntarily with Donaldson. Evans turned up later, not at her instigation, and when she was in a vulnerable position. His and his friends' behaviour was disgusting, and it's quite feasible that one could be convicted and not the other, although Donaldson walking out makes him look like a horrible tw*t as well.
I'm of the same opinion as many, a convicted rapist should not be prevented from working, but I wouldn't want him at my club.
Having said all that, I'm really not convinced by the conviction having read the sentencing notes. It seems to have come down to how drunk she was. If she'd been carried into the hotel over one of their shoulders yes, but I've watched the footage and she walks in OK, if a bit pissed. I just don't see how a jury can say beyond reasonable doubt that she was too drunk to consent. I think a lot of people look at his behaviour, are understandably disgusted, and that they may want it to be true that he's a rapist.
the other thing is that the CCRC initially said they would look at it in due course (2017 was mentioned), but then fast-tracked it after representations from his legal team. I don't know if thy want rid quickly because of the media exposure, or if it's because they've been presented with something that they are taking very seriously. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it overturned.

In the reasons for refusing permission to appeal they referred to lots of other evidence the jury will have seen/ heard. There was apparently CCTV of her in a kebab shop falling over the place, leaving her bag behind, and the taxi driver who took her and Donald back said she was steaming.

My own gut reaction is the reason it has been fast-tracked is mainly due to how short a footballer's career is (though it would gall if you were queue jumped and still in prison!) They don't take evidence into account at this stage. Two of the criteria for deciding whether to prioritise a case are:

1) The youth of the applicant where, having regard to the nature of the offence, the sentence imposed and the applicant’s personal
circumstances, the conviction has an exceptionally adverse impact on their welfare and/or educational and career prospects. In the same way, the young age of the applicant at the date of conviction will also be a consideration.

2) The applicant is at liberty but individual factors demonstrate that the conviction has an exceptionally adverse impact on the convicted person or on another individual or individuals.

[LeverEnd]

Well there is no doubt that both of those are relevant in this case. Cheers for the info. How long until they decide do you think?

[Prufrock]

Given they're only deciding if there's new information/ legal argument to justify an appeal I wouldn't have thought very long. However, the CCRC website says that depending on the complexity of the case it could be months. Given his representation at the time and the arguments he made trying to get permission to appeal, I can't imagine there's a big legal argument to be had and it'll just be new information. In short, I have no idea!

[Montreal Wanderer]

I don't really know the facts of this case but I am surprised at the reactions of horror at the crime. Apparently he had sex with a woman who was too drunk to consent, but as far as I can tell she was also too drunk to say no - to refuse. This may be rape in a UK legal sense but it is not horrific compared to some of the sex crimes we come across. Our perspectives have also altered - the sixties were full of sex, drugs and, so I'm told, rock and roll. There must have been a million incidents where people were too stoned to consent, but no one worried about that. Times have changed. I agree that several men having sex with a non-compos woman is rape - possibly even two men as in this case. Yet the guy got five years and served half. He is on a register and he still pays the price. Why not let him play football?

Pru, if kids look up to him as a hero, surely this is because they want to be great footballers, not rapists. If anyone said rape was okay because he did it, they would be locked up if they tried to prove the point. He paid and continues to pay the price - should his life be further ruined? Should he not have a chance a redemption? Oh, who cares - it's Sheffield?

[Hoboh]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -same.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm in the camp of anonymity for all in these cases until conviction, it doesn't seem fair being one sided like it is.

[Bijou Bob]

The law is fairly straight forward on the issue of rape and I would be horrified if precedent was to be set in reviewing this case, which meant that there were potentially more future victims and even fewer of the appallingly low number coming forward to bring cases. The question I have repeatedly asked of Evans' supporters is simple- " God forbid, but had that been your daughter, would you want crowds worshipping him next Saturday afternoon"? Strangely, they all seem to go quiet at that point.

[Hoboh]

The law is fairly straight forward on the issue of rape and I would be horrified if precedent was to be set in reviewing this case, which meant that there were potentially more future victims and even fewer of the appallingly low number coming forward to bring cases. The question I have repeatedly asked of Evans' supporters is simple- " God forbid, but had that been your daughter, would you want crowds worshipping him next Saturday afternoon"? Strangely, they all seem to go quiet at that point.

Reading this I'd be appalled if that was my daughter!
If it was a straight forward, bang to rights case, you know my opinion, he'd be swinging from some oak tree, however there are so many things about this that just don't seem right.
Evans and his pals are absolute odious people, no doubt about it, but was this rape? I honestly don't know

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-che ... dwyn-evans" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Prufrock]

In order to show someone is guilty of rape you have to show two things in relation to consent. Firstly, that the victim did not consent; secondly, that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the victim consented.

Juries don't give reasons but it's clear what the judge thought they'd decided. That in both cases she did not consent. She was too drunk to be able to do so. However, in the case of McDonald, who had spent time with her, met her in the street, got a taxi back together that he reasonably believed that she did consent; whereas in the case of Evans who rocked up after a text to find a steaming drunk girl already having sex with his friend who departed to let Evans have a go that Evans could not have reasonably believed that she consented. Without seeing the days of evidence that the jury saw, and the details of which the single High Court judge and then full Divisional Court saw when refusing leave to appeal, we can't say whether or not it was the correct verdict, but it's certainly perfectly reasonable that they came to different conclusions for each.

Ched Evans is not the victim here (unless you believe there has been a miscarriage of justice, which is a separate argument), and men are not the ones at a systematic disadvantage. Are rapes all the same, and is this the same as 'stranger rape' in an underpass? No, hence the difference in sentence. But it is still rape, and it is still very serious. The difference is one of degree not nature.

As for rehabilitation, firstly, any conviction over four years, like this one, never becomes spent and so never disappears from your record. Any future employer, whatever career he does, would see it with a basic criminal check. They'd also be entitled not to employ him on that basis. If you're CEO of Barclays and get done for rape, you don't have a right when you get back out to become CEO of Barclays again.

I've seen 7 and 8 year old kids throw themselves on the floor because they've seen their favourite players dive, kids learn by imitation. I've seen a 7 year old kid who idolised the ground a Chorley player walked on. Of course the kids don't idolise him because they want to be rapists, what a stupid thing to say, they idolise him because they want to be that guy, the star footballer. I don't think it takes a particularly large leap to see how this might seriously affect their views on women and sexual consent, particularly given he has shown absolutely no remorse or contrition, and has sat by whilst his supporters have vilified this woman (there is/was some nasty stuff on "his" website).

[Worthy4England]

The law is fairly straight forward on the issue of rape and I would be horrified if precedent was to be set in reviewing this case, which meant that there were potentially more future victims and even fewer of the appallingly low number coming forward to bring cases. The question I have repeatedly asked of Evans' supporters is simple- " God forbid, but had that been your daughter, would you want crowds worshipping him next Saturday afternoon"? Strangely, they all seem to go quiet at that point.

I certainly wouldn't want him playing for my Club and I'm no supporter, but either the law should change and "footballer" be added to the list of things a convicted rapist can't do when they come out, or legally (not necessarily morally) he should be allowed to get on with it. If it was my daughter I wouldn't want him playing, but you can't make laws on that basis, as you well know. If it was my daughter, I'd want the fckr shot which is probably no basis for setting legal precedent.

I do have some doubts about this case from what I've read (which again is probably no basis), but if he'd used the defence "I was too pi$$ed to understand she didn't consent", would that have stuck and been valid? I suspect not. Whilst generally these are often cases of one persons word against another, they aren't ever going to be easy to resolve.

[Athers]

What has been distasteful to me is the reaction of some football supporters to back him through it all - taking flags with his name on to games etc. I mean we mock Liverpool fans supporting Suarez but this is a different planet. And all because really, he had one good season at Sheffield United.

I'm also a bit shocked by his girlfriend (now fiancee) in all this. Some women really will put up with anything to be a WAG won't they.

[Bruce Rioja]

Correct me if I'm wrong here but has he not now paid his dues?

[Athers]

He has, and the guilty verdict is a life sentence in one way - it would take a more forgiving person than most to pay a convicted rapist to decorate their house. I'm not sure I have an answer on how to resolve that to achieve full 'reintegration', it's a problem since year dot I guess.