Discussion
ascayman said:
The only person being harassed is the woman who has just had to move for the 6th time....
It is unfortunate, I believe that situation is as a result of the ambiguity of this case. There are an awful lot of people who do not believe a rape conviction was just in this case.V8FGO said:
Pressure from others now, PPC Vera Baird asking Mike Ashley to consider his position.
https://www.northumbria-pcc.gov.uk/open-letter-mik...
More populist bhttps://www.northumbria-pcc.gov.uk/open-letter-mik...
ks from someone who is voted into their position. A PCC should be staying well away from this debate.TwigtheWonderkid said:
If they were so pissed that they can't remember, then they clearly weren't in a state to give informed consent so were raped.
But not by both guys according to the court - one was acquitted. So which is it for you? Both guilty? Has there been a miscarriage of justice in your view?blugnu said:
I guess it's the point at which he had sex with her without her permission.
We do not know that to be the case. The defendant claims she asked him to go down on her and obviously sex ensued. The claimant merely doesn't remember.At least, that's how I remember it from when I read the docs a while back.
McClure said:
At this point in time the merits of the case are irrelevant.
1. He has been found guilty by a jury who were in possession of more facts than any of us.
2. He has singularly failed to acknowledge that his actions have caused the woman distress.
3. He has allowed the public harassing of the woman by that odious website.
4. He has failed to do anything visible to stop the public harassing of the woman by social media etc, so that she is now being punished far more than him.
5. He has failed to acknowledge that his actions that night were (at best) morally questionable. It is an established principle of law that if a woman is unable to give informed consent to sex, having sex with her is rape. He seems to instead think such woman is fair game.
He is an odious bottom-feeder who has brought this public response upon himself.
1. I believe the 'facts' (evidence) are in the court docs available online for all to view. I've read the full summary, at least.1. He has been found guilty by a jury who were in possession of more facts than any of us.
2. He has singularly failed to acknowledge that his actions have caused the woman distress.
3. He has allowed the public harassing of the woman by that odious website.
4. He has failed to do anything visible to stop the public harassing of the woman by social media etc, so that she is now being punished far more than him.
5. He has failed to acknowledge that his actions that night were (at best) morally questionable. It is an established principle of law that if a woman is unable to give informed consent to sex, having sex with her is rape. He seems to instead think such woman is fair game.
He is an odious bottom-feeder who has brought this public response upon himself.
2. He is appealing his sentence as he states he is innocent.
3. How is the website harrassing the woman? AFAIK it puts across his side of events.
4. I perhaps agree, maybe he should say lay off her (I'm not on twitter so don't know what's going on).
5. I believe he came out with a statement with his mrs, acknowledging exactly that, that his actions were out of order, but that it was consensual.
5. What is your view on the other guy being acquitted. Surely, if she was unable to give consent then the other guy should have been found guilty too. Why is this not the case?
It is the ambiguity and lack of strength in the case against him which is driving both sides of the 'twitter mob' in my view.
Cie said:
McClure said:
hornetrider said:
McClure said:
2. He has singularly failed to acknowledge that his actions have caused the woman distress.
Erm...McClure said:
Ched Evans said:
"...and I am sorry that the woman involved feels wronged"
GloverMart said:
Slightly off topic but I thought he would be on a tag at least. How does that square with evening games etc? Does he get special dispensation as a footballer because they work odd hours as compared to the rest of us? If so, that will go down well.
Are you saying no-one out on licence can work at Tesco on a night shift stacking shelves?
The jiffle king said:
Just grabbed this quote from the BBC sporty website
Evans deal to Oldham off
Posted at 12:04
"Sponsor pressure on Oldham has intensified over the last 24 hours to such an extent that Oldham are pulling out of the deal to sign Ched Evans.
"Members of staff - including directors - and their families have been threatened - one board member has been told the address of where his daughter works, and told she will be raped if the club proceeds."
I cannot believe that people can behave like this
I'm sorry but that is totally fEvans deal to Oldham off
Posted at 12:04
"Sponsor pressure on Oldham has intensified over the last 24 hours to such an extent that Oldham are pulling out of the deal to sign Ched Evans.
"Members of staff - including directors - and their families have been threatened - one board member has been told the address of where his daughter works, and told she will be raped if the club proceeds."
I cannot believe that people can behave like this
ked up. Whoever made those threats needs to be prosecuted.Also, as an aside, I don't believe it's anything other than more twitter nonsense, ie a hollow threat which would never be acted upon.
smn159 said:
Link?
Ched said:
Upon legal advice, I was told not to discuss the events in question. This silence has been misinterpreted as arrogance and I would like to state that this could not be further from the truth.
I do remain limited at present by what I can say due to the ongoing referral to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and whilst I continue to maintain my innocence, I wish to make it clear that I wholeheartedly apologise for the effects that night in Rhyl has had on many people, not least the woman concerned.
Finally, it has been claimed that those using social media in an abusive and vindictive way towards this woman are supporters of mine. I wish to make it clear that these people are not my supporters and I condemn their actions entirely and will continue to do so.
I do remain limited at present by what I can say due to the ongoing referral to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and whilst I continue to maintain my innocence, I wish to make it clear that I wholeheartedly apologise for the effects that night in Rhyl has had on many people, not least the woman concerned.
Finally, it has been claimed that those using social media in an abusive and vindictive way towards this woman are supporters of mine. I wish to make it clear that these people are not my supporters and I condemn their actions entirely and will continue to do so.
PFA said:
The PFA's position remains the same, as we have expressed previously, that any club which decides to sign him would receive our support.
We have had some discussions with Oldham Athletic regarding the interest they expressed in signing Ched, although we feel it is important to make clear that, contrary to what has been reported, we were not ‘driving’ any deal.
Despite being ready to offer this from the outset, we were asked to delay whilst discussions between the club and player continued, and we were disappointed to see over the course of this week, comments being made which we feel mischaracterise our limited role in this matter.
We have had some discussions with Oldham Athletic regarding the interest they expressed in signing Ched, although we feel it is important to make clear that, contrary to what has been reported, we were not ‘driving’ any deal.
Despite being ready to offer this from the outset, we were asked to delay whilst discussions between the club and player continued, and we were disappointed to see over the course of this week, comments being made which we feel mischaracterise our limited role in this matter.
greygoose said:
GloverMart said:
Interesting developments tonight in that PFA chairman Gordon Taylor has compared the situation of Ched Evans to that of the Hillsborough victims. ie initially thought to be in the wrong but then proved to be innocent.
Good grief, Gordon, that's crass talk at the very least.
Bizarre point to try and make, can't see it being helpful at all.Good grief, Gordon, that's crass talk at the very least.
Gordon Taylor is just a doddery old union official who doesn't know his arse from his elbow. He should probably just be put out to pasture.
Looks like whoever built his website is in serious hot water.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jan/16/ch...
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jan/16/ch...
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff