Every single aspect of this case leaves me feeling uneasy.
Having read about it a while back and considered some of the evidence I would have found it very hard to reach a verdict one way or another. How one man is cleared of *struggle cuddle* and another is not when it is suggested their actions were 'predatory' is peculiar. Some of the very evidence used to suggest that the girl was 'completely out of it' appeared to show her have the sense to walk comfortably in platform shoes and remember to rush back outside to get a pizza she had left behind (CCTV). It would appear that she had consented to get to the hotel, with a man she had literally only just me. The decision of the court would suggest she consented to having sex with this man. He was acquitted. We then have Ched Evans turn up. It is suggested that the acquitted asked if his mate could 'join in' and did so. The victim has no claimed knowledge of the night before. This add weight to the fact she could not have given consent in the eyes of the court. Yet if she couldn't how was it okay for the first man to have sex with her? Meanwhile some friends and family of the acquitted are outside filming the event with a mobile phone. It is the content of this video which largely swayed the jury to convict Evans. It was suggested the girl was in and out of consciousness etc.. At this point you start thinking what a horribly grim set of events we have. Who would be having sex with someone who is in and out of consciousness? The victim did not make a complaint of *struggle cuddle*. She was encouraged to by a work colleague.
You hear rumour that there was evidence that suggested the victim was in contact with friends on Facebook that evening. It was deleted. I find the next bit tricky but you hear evidence that the victim didn't have a particularly glowing reputation in the town. This was of course inadmissable in court. You subsequently hear of a *struggle cuddle* victim publicly celebrating that they would be coming into some money, celebrating on holiday, buying a bling motor etc. The whole thing is just wrong on every level. There is a huge amount of guilt in so many way and the court decided that one of the two men involved was guilty of *struggle cuddle*. The court has decided. The sentencing I think was ridiculous as it often is in this country. If guilty of *struggle cuddle* is 5 years enough? Especially when they can be out in half of the time?
Then should the convicted rapist return to work? Do you approach this logically or emotionally? Logically they should have course be allowed to return to work. Emotionally it is a tricky one. An emotional response would be that society is worse off for the vast majority of these so called role models out there, kicking a ball around, earning in many cases tens to hundreds of thousands of £pounds per week. When the game is increasingly becoming an utter laughing stock, with grown men feigning injury, players showing little to know respect for the rules of the game or those that officiate it, when the governing bodies of the game are absolutely rampantly corrupt you have to ask yourself if we really need to have an unremoreseless, convicted rapist running around earning tens of thousands to do **** all. When you see how, what I hope is not a growing majority of these young men, behave on the pitch, you start to see how cases like the one above are possible.
Personally I'd prefer Ched Evans stays well away from football because I think it just distracts from the very obvious issues that are dragging the game down. It is amazing that in these self inflicted, harder times where people are quick to cry foul at the salary of a CEO of a business that employs thousands, they barely raise an eyelid to a young footballer, a modern day role model, earning double in a year what the evil 'fat cat' earns. (based on £50k a week.. not including bonuses, endorsements etc). Should he play? Yes it is right he is allowed to. Do I want to see another clown on my TV, there for youngsters to applaud and look up to? No the game is in enough trouble and that trouble isn't sending out a positive message.