He was originally found guilty and served a couple of years so in this case he would have been named after the verdict
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Ched Evans
- Thread starter Jurgen the German
- Start date
StephenH
David Ginola
The courts handling of rape cases is a compromise as the rape law is a muddle.
Sadly there no fair way to prosecute and the anonymity of the defendants in these cases will never happen as the police look for witnesses to come forward?
In an ideal world both parties should be anonymous as @parklane1 rightly said.
But not possible under the current laws and is open to abuse by both sides in these situations.
Sadly there no fair way to prosecute and the anonymity of the defendants in these cases will never happen as the police look for witnesses to come forward?
In an ideal world both parties should be anonymous as @parklane1 rightly said.
But not possible under the current laws and is open to abuse by both sides in these situations.
Gazza Dazzla
Chris Perry
This was the Guardians "fiver" take on it, think you can see where they stand on it! I don't think I know enough about the case to comment personally.
Ched Evans has been found not guiltyat his retrial of raping a 19-year-old waitress in a hotel room after a drunken night out with former club-mates. Evans spent two and a half years in prison for rape but his original conviction was quashed by the appeal court following a high-profile and well-funded campaign by family and friends that included the offer of a £50,000 reward for information leading to his acquittal. In a statement read outside the court by his solicitor, Evans said he was “overwhelmed with relief” following the verdict. He thanked his friends and family, “most notably my fiancee, Natasha, who chose, perhaps incredibly, to support me in my darkest hour”. Evans stood by his lawyer shaking as the statement concluded: “While my innocence has now been established, I wish to make it clear that I wholeheartedly apologise to anyone who might have been affected by the events of the night in question.”
The appeal was allowed after judges gave the go-ahead for two former sexual partners of the alleged victim to give explicit evidence in court about her sex life, a rare move that is being widely condemned by women’s support groups and campaigners. One group, Women Against Rape (WAR), told the Guardian the decision “drove a coach and horses” through legislation designed to protect victims and could stop other abused women coming forward for fear they would be quizzed about their sex lives.
Ched Evans has been found not guiltyat his retrial of raping a 19-year-old waitress in a hotel room after a drunken night out with former club-mates. Evans spent two and a half years in prison for rape but his original conviction was quashed by the appeal court following a high-profile and well-funded campaign by family and friends that included the offer of a £50,000 reward for information leading to his acquittal. In a statement read outside the court by his solicitor, Evans said he was “overwhelmed with relief” following the verdict. He thanked his friends and family, “most notably my fiancee, Natasha, who chose, perhaps incredibly, to support me in my darkest hour”. Evans stood by his lawyer shaking as the statement concluded: “While my innocence has now been established, I wish to make it clear that I wholeheartedly apologise to anyone who might have been affected by the events of the night in question.”
The appeal was allowed after judges gave the go-ahead for two former sexual partners of the alleged victim to give explicit evidence in court about her sex life, a rare move that is being widely condemned by women’s support groups and campaigners. One group, Women Against Rape (WAR), told the Guardian the decision “drove a coach and horses” through legislation designed to protect victims and could stop other abused women coming forward for fear they would be quizzed about their sex lives.
glasgowspur
Nayim
The surprising thing is that the other two guys weren't charged with rape as well.
If the law is that she can't remember consent its rape, then surely the three are guilty and not one is innocent.
I see the person responsible for the introduction of the law 16 years ago says it's set the law back 30 years!
If the law is that she can't remember consent its rape, then surely the three are guilty and not one is innocent.
I see the person responsible for the introduction of the law 16 years ago says it's set the law back 30 years!
StephenH
David Ginola
As I said trying to apply logic to any of this is hard. The Women Against Rape (WAR) spokesperson is looking for rape convictions to increase and she is not too concerned with any other aspects or the judicial system.
I feel for victims and I think the current system is floored for all parties, but this case may at least lead to debate.
monkeybarry
Ian Walker
People need to understand the potential implications of their actions and situations they find themselves in.
If you get so drunk that you cannot remember things or fully control your actions then you have to understand that you are placing yourself in a tricky position.
The same goes for having a one night stand with a footballer - a profession that is known to have a fair bit of sexually promiscuous conduct.
These two things were both choices she made and thus she needs to understand the situation she put herself in.
Now I'm not saying enjoying yourself makes crime ok. But it does make it makes less likely you'll be able to have a say in stopping it if you have willingly diminished your senses.
The knock on effect of that is in cases like this where there is clear ambiguity, you also have to accept that further scrutiny will be needed (ie accounts from ex partners) to establish evidence. So if you want a fully functional justice system and you choose to live your life in a way where you diminish your ability to give evidence, then whatever method is needed to gather evidence is appropriate.
You can't live life "out in the open everywhere" then expect complete privacy when you accuse someone of a crime.
I actually think/hope this will make people realise that ignorance is not a defence and we have responsibility for our own lives and actions.
Evans is lucky he has the profile and money to mount such defences.
If he was poor I bet he'd still be banged up and also have a very tough time getting a job in the future - such is the downside of the rehabilitation of offenders act.
Sent from my Nexus 5X using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
If you get so drunk that you cannot remember things or fully control your actions then you have to understand that you are placing yourself in a tricky position.
The same goes for having a one night stand with a footballer - a profession that is known to have a fair bit of sexually promiscuous conduct.
These two things were both choices she made and thus she needs to understand the situation she put herself in.
Now I'm not saying enjoying yourself makes crime ok. But it does make it makes less likely you'll be able to have a say in stopping it if you have willingly diminished your senses.
The knock on effect of that is in cases like this where there is clear ambiguity, you also have to accept that further scrutiny will be needed (ie accounts from ex partners) to establish evidence. So if you want a fully functional justice system and you choose to live your life in a way where you diminish your ability to give evidence, then whatever method is needed to gather evidence is appropriate.
You can't live life "out in the open everywhere" then expect complete privacy when you accuse someone of a crime.
I actually think/hope this will make people realise that ignorance is not a defence and we have responsibility for our own lives and actions.
Evans is lucky he has the profile and money to mount such defences.
If he was poor I bet he'd still be banged up and also have a very tough time getting a job in the future - such is the downside of the rehabilitation of offenders act.
Sent from my Nexus 5X using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
StephenH
David Ginola
If the lad had been a joe bloggs - he probably had kopped off with a donna and chips on his way home!
thfcsteff
Terry Dyson
This statement beggars belief. I will simply start by asking how you know this?
StephenH
David Ginola
Looked at thier statement and interview in 'the times'? a couple or so months ago. Simple their aim is to up the very low conviction rates for these type of assaults.
thfcsteff
Terry Dyson
Whatever.
Let me just say that if any 'man' thinks that -
*sneaking into a hotel room
*having sex with a woman who is so inebriated she cannot speak
*not talking to her
*sneaking out of the room and countering off on their merry way
is consensual behavior, then I think they should be considered a small-dingdonged clown shoe of the lowest order.
You can call it whatever the fudge you like, but PERSONALLY, I would NOT call it 'innocent'.
HER previous sex life should be a factor??? FFS.
HERE is the bottom-line (and in answer to whoever it was that asked why the others had not been charged)...she obviously CONSENTED to the other involvement - she went to the room with them.
It appears to ME that she had NO IDEA Evans was lurking in the shadows, that Evans was hovvering like a pathetic predator. In other words, it doesn't appear as though she ever consented to Evans being involved in anything.
Let me just say that if any 'man' thinks that -
*sneaking into a hotel room
*having sex with a woman who is so inebriated she cannot speak
*not talking to her
*sneaking out of the room and countering off on their merry way
is consensual behavior, then I think they should be considered a small-dingdonged clown shoe of the lowest order.
You can call it whatever the fudge you like, but PERSONALLY, I would NOT call it 'innocent'.
HER previous sex life should be a factor??? FFS.
HERE is the bottom-line (and in answer to whoever it was that asked why the others had not been charged)...she obviously CONSENTED to the other involvement - she went to the room with them.
It appears to ME that she had NO IDEA Evans was lurking in the shadows, that Evans was hovvering like a pathetic predator. In other words, it doesn't appear as though she ever consented to Evans being involved in anything.
thfcsteff
Terry Dyson
And is that her/their ONLY objective? Higher stats? For what aim?
StephenH
David Ginola
Funny thing someone said on TV, that she never accused anybody' of rape, and there was no DNA evidence.
Very strange, the whole thing. He's been acquitted so let's hope everybody involved can get on with thier lives.
glasgowspur
Nayim
I said it, she never claimed to not giving consent, she claims she can't remember if she did.
As for your first paragraph if there was proof of any of that he would still be in jail, and rightly so.
tommysvr
Simon Davies
The vitriol aimed at the woman is absolutely shocking.
I also cannot take anyone who thinks this is "justice" seriously. Why would having sex with other guys mean that Evans didn't rape her? The fact that that was the decisive factor in this case is outrageous. In an already bricky world of rape culture, this sets us all back even further.
I also cannot take anyone who thinks this is "justice" seriously. Why would having sex with other guys mean that Evans didn't rape her? The fact that that was the decisive factor in this case is outrageous. In an already bricky world of rape culture, this sets us all back even further.
monkeybarry
Ian Walker
Vitriol towards her is unacceptable
But on the same note people need to start respecting the Justice process and stop judgment by hysteria
Citizens also need to start taking responsibility for their actions (for more about that see my large post above)
tommysvr
Simon Davies
No I don't - I've stated exactly why I don't respect the judgement of it. It's something that's not allowed in the majority of cases, and I don't see why it has any relevance in this one either.
And...Jesus. Are you actually going to blame the victim?
monkeybarry
Ian Walker
Judging by the decision of the our system, Evans is actually the victim now.
Blame - no, I'm not entering into a blame position from either side.
What I am saying, as you'll see from my large post, is that individuals need a better respect for the situations they place themselves in and understand that sometimes these result in regrettable outcomes, but not necessarily crimes.
As far as things not being used in other cases goes, that's irrelevant. That position would have seen no progress or change in justice for centuries.
Sent from my Nexus 5X using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Seedy Ron
Frederic Kanoute
Of course it's relevant, it's the only difference between him being convicted and refused the right to appeal a few years ago, and where he's ended up now.
It doesn't sit at all uncomfortably with you that he's offered a 50k bounty for "evidence" to exonerate him, and a couple of people, apparently known to him, have turned up able to parrot some phrases that had been put in the public domain? Was the progress for justice not when we stopped putting the victim's sexual history on trial?
It doesn't sit at all uncomfortably with you that he's offered a 50k bounty for "evidence" to exonerate him, and a couple of people, apparently known to him, have turned up able to parrot some phrases that had been put in the public domain? Was the progress for justice not when we stopped putting the victim's sexual history on trial?