Ched Evans

Here is your chance to stand up and be counted, if you believe he should not be reinstated because of what he did, just because he is a footballer


https://www.change.org/p/kevin-mccabe-c ... e_petition

If he is a rapist because of what the law has stated, then you have to accept he can work again as that is what the law says.

If you take the law as black and white and whatever its judgement is, is concrete then he can play.

Personally I think the law is a load of bollocks. For some reason people live their lives by what it says is right and wrong. The law is personal opinion, not certainties.

The case is questionable, as is any court judgement.

Of course he should be allowed to play football until such a time that football puts rules in place to stop people who have committed certain crimes from playing.

But just because he can doesn't mean he should. Guys a rapist ass hole and every club should refuse to sign him. Especially as he has shown zero remorse.

If he is a rapist because of what the law has stated, then you have to accept he can work again as that is what the law says.

If you take the law as black and white and whatever its judgement is, is concrete then he can play.

Personally I think the law is a load of bollocks. For some reason people live their lives by what it says is right and wrong. The law is personal opinion, not certainties.

The case is questionable, as is any court judgement.

There are many professions which children look up too which a convict rapist would never have their job back. Teachers, in the forces and many others

Should be banned for life. If a window cleaner was jailed for rape and then on release he wanted to go back to his profession then would you leave the rapist alone to clean your windows with just the wife at home?

Alot of innocent people have been convicted, imo evans is innocent but obviously the court did not, surely he has a right to make a living again, he has paid his time in jail, what if he gets his conviction over turned which is a serious possibility

Should be banned for life. If a window cleaner was jailed for rape and then on release he wanted to go back to his ssion then would you leave the rapist alone to clean your windows with just the wife at stop him ?

You would never know as they be allowed to carry on and move to another part country. as in any job not involving kids vunrable people! they would be allowed to get on with life. as evans is not directly employed with kids ect no reason other than moral grounds to stop him,

All the cub patrons, sponsors and politicians who have spoke out against the boy are doing it for their own gain, they could not give a shit about him or the girl he was convicted of raping. It is just a case of being seen to be doing the right thing.

Footballers are role models to children. Like it or not they are and have been for years. What kind of message does it send to kids when they see him playing?

He's a filthy f**king rapist and should be treated as such. Why should a rapist be allowed to re-enter society at their privalidged and well paid level? He's shown no remorse and he's ruined lives. F**k him.

Should be banned for life. If a window cleaner was jailed for rape and then on release he wanted to go back to his ssion then would you leave the rapist alone to clean your windows with just the wife at stop him ?

You would never know as they be allowed to carry on and move to another part country. as in any job not involving kids vunrable people! they would be allowed to get on with life. as evans is not directly employed with kids ect no reason other than moral grounds to stop him,

Sex offender register would sort that out.

Footballers are role models to children. Like it or not they are and have been for years. What kind of message does it send to kids when they see him playing?

He's a filthy f**king rapist and should be treated as such. Why should a rapist be allowed to re-enter society at their privalidged and well paid level? He's shown no remorse and he's ruined lives. F**k him.

And what sort of message would it send out to youngsters cheering a rapist when he scores and chanting his name. People like evans need an example made of them that it's not acceptable in our society and any heinous crime will not be tolerated.

The black and white view would be that he's a convicted rapist and that with football being a profession where the players are seen as role models then you would argue he should not return.

However, it could also be argued that returning to sport could be part of his rehabilitation. Is it too late for him to become a positive role model? Further down the line if he went on to become an honest professional, worked his socks off, did good work for the community and never re-offended then couldn't that show that he served his time?

Or are we a society that casts aside convicts to the scrap heap? Does he not deserve a chance to rectify himself? That said, the mental scars left on the alleged victim are a life sentence and she won't get a chance to rectify her past experience.

This goes without commenting on the case which has been controversial to say the least.

Anyway, my personal view is that he should be allowed to return to football if he finds a club willing to take him on. I wouldn't want him representing my club but I wouldn't condemn another club for taking him on and giving him a chance to rehabilitate if you will.

Here is your chance to stand up and be counted, if you believe he should not be reinstated because of what he did, just because he is a footballer


https://www.change.org/p/kevin-mccabe-c ... e_petition

Signed

To be honest I can't understand how the players can train with him. Maybe it's a footballer thing, well they've been getting away with rape, spit roasting for years and they thought they were invincible and above the law.

Rapists and pedophiles need castrating then future offenders would take notice.

I think he should be allowed to play for a number of reasons :-
1. Why should he be singled out when others in the public eye like Leslie Grantham who murdered a taxi driver are allowed to continue in their jobs.
2. There is nothing in law which bans him from being rehabilitated.
3. The no remorse argument should have no relevance as he is still contesting his innocence and after reading the facts I think he will be found not guilty.
The facts are that the plaintiff did not go to the police with a complaint of rape, but thought that her drinks had been spiked. This was found to be untrue. Ched Evans and Clayton McDonald both admitted to sexual activity and even though there was no complaint of rape the pair were prosecuted. Ched was found guilty because the plaintiff was too intoxicated to be able to consent, yet :-
a) There is precedence with the case of R V Bree, which means that drunken consent where a person is still functioning and able to make conscious decisions is still consent.
b) There is plenty of proof of the plaintiff's ability to make rational decisions from the CCTV evidence such as squatting down and rummaging through her handbag and getting back up in high heels; walking unaided; holding a conversation with other people; spurning the advances of another male; helping herself to food from other people in the kebab shop; ordering food; paying with the correct coinage; squatting in a doorway to urinate; reacting to a car flashing it's lights, and remembering she had a pizza outside and going back to retrieve it.
c) There is also evidence of her composing a coherent text message, correctly spelt and capitalized; responding to requests - she was asked by the taxi driver to get out of the back seat and into the front as she was eating a pizza and requesting Clayton not to leave her.
d) She was not too intoxicated to consent to sex with Clayton.
http://www.chedevans.com/

Should be banned for life. If a window cleaner was jailed for rape and then on release he wanted to go back to his profession then would you leave the rapist alone to clean your windows with just the wife at home?

poor comparison.

he's not a window cleaner, he's a footballer. as a footballer he will train with other men, and play on a saturday. he will not be put into situations where he could rape women during the course of his employment.

what he was convicted of was taking advantage of a drunk woman who he knew lacked the ability to consent to sex. there's a big difference to that and the stereotypical rape scenario you paint in your post. the court acknowledged this with a lesser sentence.

On the fence on this one. Wait until that independent tribunal makes their decision, until then he is a convicted rapist and should 100% not be allowed to play.

Should be banned for life. If a window cleaner was jailed for rape and then on release he wanted to go back to his profession then would you leave the rapist alone to clean your windows with just the wife at home?

poor comparison.

he's not a window cleaner, he's a footballer. as a footballer he will train with other men, and play on a saturday. he will not be put into situations where he could rape women during the course of his employment.

what he was convicted of was taking advantage of a drunk woman who he knew lacked the ability to consent to sex. there's a big difference to that and the stereotypical rape scenario you paint in your post. the court acknowledged this with a lesser sentence.

If 'he took advantage of a drunk women who he knew lacked the ability to consent to sex', how do you explain the evidence from the trial I have quoted in my post above points b) and c) and the Jury's findings point d)?

Should be banned for life. If a window cleaner was jailed for rape and then on release he wanted to go back to his profession then would you leave the rapist alone to clean your windows with just the wife at home?

poor comparison.

he's not a window cleaner, he's a footballer. as a footballer he will train with other men, and play on a saturday. he will not be put into situations where he could rape women during the course of his employment.

what he was convicted of was taking advantage of a drunk woman who he knew lacked the ability to consent to sex. there's a big difference to that and the stereotypical rape scenario you paint in your post. the court acknowledged this with a lesser sentence.

If 'he took advantage of a drunk women who he knew lacked the ability to consent to sex', how do you explain the evidence from the trial I have quoted in my post above points b) and c) and the Jury's findings point d)?

you're not quite right on some of your points.

using R v Bree, you're correct that drunken consent is consent nonetheless, however, what matters is whether the reasonable person would conclude that the woman was able to consent. the fact the woman merely appeared to consent is not enough to acquit evans. it must have been obvious to the reasonable person that she was capable of making a reasoned decision.

as for point B, correct me if i'm wrong but didnt evans "join in" with the intercourse already taking place between the complainant and the other defendant? he texted evans something along the lines of 'i've pulled a girl'. if evans "joined in", its quite possible that the second defendant was reasonable in his belief of consent but evans, was not.

on evans website it does say that she was able to do various things that you'd expect a blind drunk person not to be able to do, but please fish that out in the court transcript. thats the only source of information you should be using. by the way, i agree that evans was probably innocent, but i'm just playing devils advocate here.

lastly, you're last point is plain wrong, as if that was the case the jury would have been directed to find consent and thus no rape.

Should be banned for life. If a window cleaner was jailed for rape and then on release he wanted to go back to his profession then would you leave the rapist alone to clean your windows with just the wife at home?

poor comparison.

he's not a window cleaner, he's a footballer. as a footballer he will train with other men, and play on a saturday. he will not be put into situations where he could rape women during the course of his employment.

what he was convicted of was taking advantage of a drunk woman who he knew lacked the ability to consent to sex. there's a big difference to that and the stereotypical rape scenario you paint in your post. the court acknowledged this with a lesser sentence.

If 'he took advantage of a drunk women who he knew lacked the ability to consent to sex', how do you explain the evidence from the trial I have quoted in my post above points b) and c) and the Jury's findings point d)?

you're not quite right on some of your points.

using R v Bree, you're correct that drunken consent is consent nonetheless, however, what matters is whether the reasonable person would conclude that the woman was able to consent. the fact the woman merely appeared to consent is not enough to acquit evans. it must have been obvious to the reasonable person that she was capable of making a reasoned decision.

as for point B, correct me if i'm wrong but didnt evans "join in" with the intercourse already taking place between the complainant and the other defendant? he texted evans something along the lines of 'i've pulled a girl'. if evans "joined in", its quite possible that the second defendant was reasonable in his belief of consent but evans, was not.

on evans website it does say that she was able to do various things that you'd expect a blind drunk person not to be able to do, but please fish that out in the court transcript. thats the only source of information you should be using. by the way, i agree that evans was probably innocent, but i'm just playing devils advocate here.

lastly, you're last point is plain wrong, as if that was the case the jury would have been directed to find consent and thus no rape.

The CCTV shows how drunk she was and when she woke at 1130 she went to the police and a Doctor detected no alcohol. In other words her liver had broken down the alcohol from when she left the nightclub and entered the hotel at 0415 until the Doctor's test after 1130. Therefore, she would be less drunk when with the second defendant, Ched Evans. ( the times are from the case transcript - R V Ched Evans (Chedwyn Evans) :: Crimeline ).
The Judge directed the jury to regard each case as being separate with an overlap of evidence and therefore that the verdicts could be different in each case. Therefore, my point d) still could be right.

The CCTV footage showed that while she was inside the kebab shop she was unsteady on her feet, at one point she fell over and landed on the floor. On the other hand, outside the kebab shop she could be seen eating pizza from a large box, although she was also seen to stumble, squat, lose her balance, and walk unsteadily. Indeed, she left her handbag in the shop. Based on this evidence, the prosecution case was that she was very drunk.

The night porter described her as "extremely drunk".

As a result of an examination of the samples, at that stage, notwithstanding the direct evidence that she had had a good deal to drink the evening before, no alcohol was detected. That may have been the consequence of its elimination over the course of time.

The expert called by the defence calculated that the complainant's likely blood-alcohol level at about 4am would have approximated to something like 2½ times the legal driving limit.

she was highly drunk!

i'll read the rest of that article later

I refuse to sign any petition that tries to take away the skilled job of an innocent man.

I thought he was found Guilty, correct me if I am wrong!

I thought he was found Guilty, correct me if I am wrong!

That's the problem with some people, they can't and will not believe the jury verdict. A family member was sentenced too 13 years imprisonment in September and all my family swear blind that he's innocent and it's a miscarriage of justice and he was framed. We've had massive rows and we've disowned one another as I keep banging the drum that the Jury of 12 people found him guilty.

Loved ones are blind to the truth and love ones couldn't possibly commit such vile crimes.

We're not back in the 70s or 80s anymore.

On the fence on this one. Wait until that independent tribunal makes their decision, until then he is a convicted rapist and should 100% not be allowed to play.

Absolutely

I thought he was found Guilty, correct me if I am wrong!

That's the problem with some people, they can't and will not believe the jury verdict. A family member was sentenced too 13 years imprisonment in September and all my family swear blind that he's innocent and it's a miscarriage of justice and he was framed. We've had massive rows and we've disowned one another as I keep banging the drum that the Jury of 12 people found him guilty.

Loved ones are blind to the truth and love ones couldn't possibly commit such vile crimes.

We're not back in the 70s or 80s anymore.

To be found guilty there has to be 'NO REASONABLE DOUBT'. After looking at the evidence I have highlighted in my previous posts in this thread why I have reasonable doubt. Most cases a jury gets right, but there are a minority of cases that end with numerous appeals and a verdict being overturned. I think this will be such a case. Furthermore, I do not think he should be singled out for being in the public eye and banned from his work, when people like Leslie Grantham who committed murder are allowed to continue in their jobs.

On the fence on this one. Wait until that independent tribunal makes their decision, until then he is a convicted rapist and should 100% not be allowed to play.

as of now he is a convicted rapist.

are you saying he must now wait until the tribunal comes to a not guilty before he can play football? what an absurdity that would be.

what's he meant to do in the mean time?

I thought he was found Guilty, correct me if I am wrong!

That's the problem with some people, they can't and will not believe the jury verdict. A family member was sentenced too 13 years imprisonment in September and all my family swear blind that he's innocent and it's a miscarriage of justice and he was framed. We've had massive rows and we've disowned one another as I keep banging the drum that the Jury of 12 people found him guilty.

Loved ones are blind to the truth and love ones couldn't possibly commit such vile crimes.

We're not back in the 70s or 80s anymore.

To be found guilty there has to be 'NO REASONABLE DOUBT'. After looking at the evidence I have highlighted in my previous posts in this thread why I have reasonable doubt. Most cases a jury gets right, but there are a minority of cases that end with numerous appeals and a verdict being overturned. I think this will be such a case. Furthermore, I do not think he should be singled out for being in the public eye and banned from his work, when people like Leslie Grantham who committed murder are allowed to continue in their jobs.

thats fine, but again, people are completely missing the point.

until a not guilty verdict from the commission, out of respect to the victim and the justice system, he is a rapist. we can all have our personal views as to whether he is or isn't, but you cannot use that alone to justify him being allowed back into football.

its no surprise that this has culminated in people wanting him banned from football. look at the draconian ban on luis suarez for biting a player. my view is that he should be allowed back in, but i'd have the same view if it was the case he pleaded guilty.

On the fence on this one. Wait until that independent tribunal makes their decision, until then he is a convicted rapist and should 100% not be allowed to play.

as of now he is a convicted rapist.

are you saying he must now wait until the tribunal comes to a not guilty before he can play football? what an absurdity that would be.

what's he meant to do in the mean time?

f**k tribunals, if there is doubt by the corrupt higher panel then it should be a retrial before 12 jurors and not some stuck up bent panel who are probably rapists and pedophiles themselves.

On the fence on this one. Wait until that independent tribunal makes their decision, until then he is a convicted rapist and should 100% not be allowed to play.

what's he meant to do in the mean time?

Do what every other rapist, pedophile, murderer and vile scum do, claim benefits. Why should he be given special treatment, because don't forget he is a convicted 'RAPIST'.

On the fence on this one. Wait until that independent tribunal makes their decision, until then he is a convicted rapist and should 100% not be allowed to play.

as of now he is a convicted rapist.

are you saying he must now wait until the tribunal comes to a not guilty before he can play football? what an absurdity that would be.

what's he meant to do in the mean time?

f**k tribunals, if there is doubt by the corrupt higher panel then it should be a retrial before 12 jurors and not some stuck up bent panel who are probably rapists and pedophiles themselves.

now you're just ranting, there's no point discussing this with you any more