Would you have Ched Evans?

[The Ghost of Michael Theo]

He wouldn't be able to go anywhere where he needs a work visa. As he has a criminal record, he would not qualify.

 

[Moosheep]

Read an interesting point today. Evans would not actually be permitted to play overseas because, although he is no longer incarcerated, he will have to sign the sex offenders register every week at a UK police station unless he gets his conviction overturned.

Apparently Genk in Belgium and a Spanish club are interested.

Genk is actually the current club of Ilombe Mboyo, the rehabilitated convicted rapist who Norwich were rumoured to have been interested in signing.

Not quite right. He will be under the supervision of the probation service until the end of his sentence who would only allow him to travel overseas in exceptional circumstances (eg family funeral). The sex offenders register is an annual requirement (unless you are of no fixed abode in which case it is weekly). He would have to notify the authorities if he was going abroad.

He wouldn't be able to go anywhere where he needs a work visa. As he has a criminal record, he would not qualify.

Working within the EU would be no problem. Although on paper he would struggle to get a working visa outside the EU it seems that these things are never seem to be set in stone. Exceptions get made, especially if you know the right people. I would be surprised if he managed to get into the US though.

I would be very surprised if we see Ched Evan playing football professionally until his full 5 year sentence has passed.

Moo

 

[Wiz]

Can I just mention that the poor ruddy woman carries the horrible after effects of this dispicable crime for her entire lifetime!

 

[CanaryNath]

I do not see that someone found guilty of this type of crime should be able to serve their time and then have a right to re-assume their previous chosen career, with all the wealth and public attention that goes with it in this case

Would a CEO of a large company be able to return to his post, if he were found guilty of this same crime? I suspect not.

That said, I agree with much of what has been said above, and should the conviction be overturned then he deserves to be able to continue in his chosen career. (whether that happens is another thing entirely).

 

[The Ghost of Michael Theo]

Yes.

The same woman who illegally tweeted about 'winning big' not long after the arrest.

The same woman who has now had to change her name again to keep Ched's online supporters at bay.

Like I said earlier in this thread - I bet everyone involved regrets decisions they have made both on that night, and since. Too many lives have been ruined by a stupid sequence of events that could have been avoided by any one of the people involved.

 

[splutcho]

The same woman who illegally tweeted about 'winning big' not long after the arrest.

That doesn't mean she deserved to be raped.

The same woman who has now had to change her name again to keep Ched's online supporters at bay.

I'm not sure how this is a defence of Ched.

 

[The Ghost of Michael Theo]

I'm not meaning to defend anyone. Like I said, it's a horrible situation, and as far as I can tell, the actions of Ched that evening are pretty much indefensible.

I'm just adding more information, that's all. People are able to decipher and judge however they see fit.

 

[Canaryboy]

and as far as I can tell, the actions of Ched that evening are pretty much indefensible.

No doubt, getting a taxi back to a hotel to have sex with a random stranger and having your little brother and his mate film it through the window as a trophy. All whilst having a girlfriend. 

Is difficult to defend that, most people will consider that immorality and indecency. Typical of the 'lad culture' that we have in this country.  But the above isn't surprising for your typical arrogant footballer, particularly one who was earning thousands as a teenager at one of the countries biggest clubs and has probably considered himself gods gift to wannabe wags for years. 

It would take a special kind of moron to perform what they themselves thought was a "rape" in front of two witnesses, who'd they'd have to trust with their life, whilst asking them to capture and retain video evidence of the offence. 

But the topic is interesting me. At the moment we seem to have a bit of a media fueled witch hunt going on. The conviction was two and a half years ago, and we've always known the expected release date. 

I just find it interesting how so many people seem to use tabloid commentary as their moral compass, rather than retaining an open mind. I'm particularly interested in seeing what would happen if the conviction is overturned. At the moment with have a conviction with some reasonable doubt, if he had it overturned we'd have a man declared innocent but with some reasonable doubt, which would put us in exactly the same position.

The shoe would then be on the other foot. So whilst some people are pointing out that whilst he is convicted, there are some reasonable grounds to doubt the validity of the jury's decision (and the reply being that we aren't being sympathetic enough to the victim), we could well end up in a position where he is declared not guilty in a retrial, where those same people will then be saying that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that he is actually guilty (at which point the reply will be that we aren't being sympathetic enough to Ched Evans?).

What would happen however is that the attention of the media would turn towards the victim. Will the people who would subsequently witch hunt her, feel remorse at their damnation of Ched Evans?

Or would a more sensible position to have taken from the start, in this particular case, one where we all acknowledge that we will never know whether he raped her or not. The only person who does know, considering the victim herself claims not to have remembered events, is Ched Evans. Or, Ched Evans and the victim, if she does indeed remember (in which case, she'd have lied to the police). Assuming that he was any less drunk than her. That is my position. 

If he did get his conviction overturned I'll refrain from joining in the witch hunt against the victim, just as I refuse to be drawn into one against Ched Evans. As for showing sympathy to the victim, because this will stay with her for the rest of her life. Actually, she made no allegation of rape to the police and claimed in statements that she couldn't remember anything from that night. That is the entire basis of the case, whether she was too drunk to have consented or not. So I'm not sure what trauma she is supposed to carry with her, or whether she even considers herself a rape victim? Any evidence that she does? 

Either she was paralytic and in no fit state to consent, in which case the law considers this to be "rape". Or she wasn't paralytic, and was in a fit state to consent, and probably does remember. In which case this would not be rape. If anything, she is probably traumatized by this media circus, which is bringing her name back to the fore (and it is easy to find out), any inroads that she had made into building a new life are likely jeopardized by the very fact that the media are churning out dozens of articles about her every day.

They didn't have to give the Ched Evans appeal the publicity that they have, but chose to because it sells papers, and the longer their paying customers continue the witch hunt against Ched Evans the longer they will keep sticking him on their front page. 

The reason that I find it difficult to call Ched Evans a rapist in this case, is that I've known tonnes of people in the past, particularly at uni, who have had sex (males and females) and completely forgotten in the morning. None of whom, as far as I'm aware, feel like they were raped. The victim's toxicology reports showed that she was likely two and a half times over the drink drive limit. That would be similar for most people on Prince of Wales Road on a Saturday night, some of whom will end up in a strangers bedroom. Most people will be over the drink drive after two drinks, so it would only take five to be two and a half times over? 

Ched Evans told police that he had slept with her. Why didn't they do a toxicology report on him? If he were 3 and a half times over the drink drive limit, how is he supposed to even notice that she was very drunk? Try being a sober person in a nightclub, you noticed how wrecked everybody is. You don't when you are hammered yourself. 

If a drunk man had intercourse with a drunk woman, and the man couldn't remember it, but the woman could - would we call the woman a rapist? Because the man was too drunk to consent? If so, then do we have anybody who under that definition is a potential rape victim in the eyes of the law, but doesn't consider themselves to be one?

These are the facts (yes, facts of the case) which lead people to have a reasonable doubt.   

 

[-Matt-]

Regardless of his conviction, and the result of his fresh appeal, I wouldn't want him back here. It's just not the kind of negative attention that I'd want for NCFC.

One thing that people keep saying does bother me though...

If he genuinely believes he wasn't guilty of rape, then why would he show remorse? He's come out and admitted what a seedy incident it was, but I wouldn't be apologising for something I didn't think I'd done.

That's not a comment from me about his guilt, or otherwise. I don't know enough of the facts to make a proper decision. I do know that neither Evans or the girl involved come out with any credit.

 

[Keckers]

No. Forget whether or not he will be allowed to by supervision (The NPS has a history of being quite accommodating to celebrity types), I would not have him here on moral grounds. Regardless of the supposed criminality of his actions, he is a pretty unpleasant character to have partook in such a situation. I'm sure others do the same, but when they come to light it should be the end of their career. It very often is in other public spheres (politics, etc.) and given the hero worship and influence they carry, I would want there to be a moral compass in play.

He will have plenty of opportunities to take on other careers but criminal convictions bar people from certain jobs (banking / teaching / medicine / etc.) and I truly believe society should apply a higher standard to those we hero worship.

 

[Canaryboy]

It is looking increasingly likely that his career is over, isn't it? He is training with Sheffield United but they have had their two main sponsors threaten to pull out, Jennifer Ennis wants her name removed from a stand, and two patrons have resigned, the local MP in Sheffield happens to be Nick Clegg who has spoken out too. Can't see any club in this country touching him. 

 

[Canaryboy]

By the way, did people know that he 'went down' on the girl after his mate had unprotected intercourse with the girl? I may not be convinced that he is a rapist, but that is f*cking gross! 

 

[splutcho]

I wouldn't be happy about stirring my mates porridge, let alone that, but I also wouldn't rape a girl...

 

[Boyerboy]

There are so really difficult and interesting points in this debate and all credit to you all for keeping it civil and companionable whilst debating such provacative and morally sensitive matters.

The reality is that whether you regard it as moral outrage or a witch hunt, public opinion has now decided this issue. No club could survive the moral and financial pressure that would follow signing Evans. It would be suicide.

Evans will never play again. It's over.

 

[Canaryboy]

Evans will never play again. It's over.

There is the possibility that he could play overseas between now and his appeal hearing, if there is one.

Did anybody watch panorama about the fake sheikh though, and how easily he'd destroyed lives and careers with entrapment? I felt particularly sorry for that lad who had been in London's burning. Nine months in prison, promising career over, and 18 years of depression. I'm sure the papers managed to create hysteria around his 'cocaine dealing' at the time too. 

 

[Canaryboy]

but I also wouldn't rape a girl...

There is a big elephant in the room here though, isn't there, when we say that Evans 'raped' the girl. 

She had sex with two men, claimed not to remember either. Evans was tried and convicted of rape on the basis that the girl was too drunk to consent. Why was McDonald cleared? 

Do Southport also have a rapist playing for them, she couldn't remember having sex with him either? 

Either Evans should be cleared at a retrial, or McDonald owes us two and a half years in prison? 

 

[morty]

There is a big elephant in the room here though, isn't there, when we say that Evans 'raped' the girl. 

She had sex with two men, claimed not to remember either. Evans was tried and convicted of rape on the basis that the girl was too drunk to consent. Why was McDonald cleared? 

Do Southport also have a rapist playing for them, she couldn't remember having sex with him either? 

Either Evans should be cleared at a retrial, or McDonald owes us two and a half years in prison? 

It all smells a bit fishy to me.

Lol

 

[splutcho]

We do not know all the intricate details of the case found Mcdonald innocent and Evans guilty. In the eyes of the law, he is a rapist, in my eyes, he is a rapist.

 

[Monty13]

We do not know all the intricate details of the case found Mcdonald innocent and Evans guilty. In the eyes of the law, he is a rapist, in my eyes, he is a rapist.

I personally didn't realise we had got to the point where the British justice system is infallible, and also never influenced by external public opinion or political pressure, good to know..... 

Also OJ Simpson definitely didn't murder anyone and Michael Jackson never touched a child...

 

[Canaryboy]

We do not know all the intricate details of the case found Mcdonald innocent and Evans guilty. In the eyes of the law, he is a rapist, in my eyes, he is a rapist.

You mean "in the eyes of the jury", who have to try and interpret the law. 

We do know that before the system changed in 2003 this case wouldn't even have gone to court, and that since 2003 the majority of overturned convictions have been rape convictions. That is enough not to want to completely destroy his life until at least the point that the CCRB route is closed to him. 

This whole thing is a bit of a paradox isn't it? The argument against him being allowed to return to football is that he hasn't expressed remorse and apologised to his victim, and that you cannot be rehabilitated unless you first admit your guilt. If he did that he would become unable to clear his name. 

What if he really is not guilty? His options according to society (and you?) right now are:

1. Show remorse for a crime that he know he didn't commit, and begin 'rehabilitation', but return to his livelihood and the only job that he is competent of doing. Having to live with the 'rapist' tag for the rest of his life. 
2. Continue to protest his innocence and pursue the options open to him in order to clear his name, but due to the typical two year CCRB wait have to give up your football career in order to do so. Potentially lose the 'rapist' tag, but no career, probably left skint and depressed with little by way of life skills at the age of 30. 

It is lose lose for him isn't it? And if he does pursue number 2, and finds that he can't have a football career as a result, then he isn't exactly taking the easy way out is he? 

The CCRB thing will probably take 18 to 24 months to resolve. Either they can get the conviction overturned or they can't. The papers have patiently waited two and a half years to whip up the public up into this frenzy, so a further 18 months isn't too long to wait.

Besides, why shouldn't a conviction by a jury be challenged? They are just 12 normal members of the British public randomly selected and asked to vote 'yes' or 'no'. We live in a country where a parliament full of Oxbridge graduates can be duped by Alistair Campbell's "dodgy dossier" into voting to enter a decade long war, so not inconceivable that 12 people with no legal experience could reach the wrong conclusion in a trial, and it does happen. 

And some of the people wading into this debate shouldn't be considered qualified to share their opinion. Nick Clegg has had quite a lot to say about the subject, shame he won't show any remorse for the cover up of child abuse in his own party. 

I realise that I am once again at danger of being perceived as an Evans apologist, I actually just want to wait for the outcome of the CCRB challenge before declaring that I think his career should be over. That's the bit that I take issue with, what happens in the 18 to 24 months between now and then, because if he isn't training and playing then his career is over no matter what the outcome.

I also don't want to dance like a monkey to the tune of the media. They have always taken pleasure in destroying peoples careers, and the public lap it up, did you watch Panorama the other day? If you haven't then give it a watch, and you will see a clear example of a career being ruined unjustifiably. I defy you not to feel sorry for John Alford. In the eyes of the law he is a cocaine dealer. In the eyes of everybody who watched that panorama episode, he clearly isn't, he hasn't had his name cleared yet. Has been 18 years and counting. That episode is on iPlayer if you have a spare half an hour.