Ched Evans allowed back

There is an old saying - "there's none so blind as them as won't see"

I appreciate that trying to argue the cause of reason on this group, is akin to trying to reason with a group of ISIS fighters. But there are surely limits even here, as to what constitutes reasonable behaviour. To those that responded to my recent post with these comments;

"He's trying to justify rape. Because he has behaved like that before. That is the only conclusion I can come to after reading his posts."

"Fatbloke....have you ever raped anyone ? I have a feeling you have"

"How many of the men out there, who are so desperate to plead the case for his innocence, are doing it because they don't want to think about their own behaviour?"

"I would think all men who justify what Ched Evans has done would do well to examine their own sexual behaviour"

"After having many many men tell me that what those men did to that young woman wasn't rape, that she was a slut and loved it blah blah blah, yeah, I agree, my first thought is that they have done similar and are trying to justify themselves and their rapist pasts."

etc etc

Well your logic simply beggars belief.

NONE of you have ever met me!
NONE of you know anything about me!
NONE of you even know my real name.

But just because I'm prepared to stand up in this forum and put forward a structured, reasoned argument, which is referenced to the available evidence including the relevant case law - YOU, that's right YOU, feel free to brand me as a rapist.

If you consider yourself "feminists" then you are doing yourself and real feminists no favours at all!

Fatbloke, are you actually arguing that if CE did not ask the complainant directly if he could "have a go" but asked another person in the room who had absolutely no authority to speak for her, then that counts as consent?

Even CE's lawyers didn't think that would fly, which presumably explained the difference between the Court evidence and the police statement.

X post Venus, exactly.

You can post anything you like on the internet.

The simple posting of it doesn't make the conviction unsound, though.

That wasn't at all what she said, was it though? That you weren't allowed to make your "counterargument"? It's telling that you didn't grasp the point she was making.

And it's only a "robust" argument in your esteemed opinion. In a free country, people are perfectly entitled to point out what a load of rape apologising shit it is.

I think we're watching a worldview being shaken. Suddenly it no longer makes sense. It's rather curious to observe

I hate to break it to you, but your argument isn't robust, fatbloke.

You're argument amounts to "I don't think what Ched Evans did amounts to rape" and the law says different.

Jury deliberations are in private, so we don't know.

It's entirely possible that they considered her unable/incapacitated by alcohol to such an extent that she was unable to consent to a man who had just appeared in the room with her, and that she didn't know.

I would remind you that the jury found him guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" not "beyond a shadow of a doubt" - that's our criminal justice system.

"Some people seem to think that if a counterargument exists, whatever it might be, that's sufficient to say there shouldn't be a conviction. They are wrong."

Absolute crap!

This is a free country. If there is a counter argument, then I am perfectly entitled to make it and if you don't like me putting up a robust, structured argument, as to why I think the conviction was unsound....TOUGH!

"I think the bit that might have been extremely damaging in his own account was when he told the police that he asked CM if he could have a go, and did not ask the excessively drunk teenager herself."

I did say in my last post;

"It’s no good relying on the argument that Ched Evans asked Clayton McDonald if he could join in, rather than asking the complainant directly. The point of both their evidence, is that the question of Ched Evans joining in WAS asked in the presence of the complainant, that the complainant heard and understood the question, and responded by saying yes, or words to that effect."

"It is therefore clear, that as far as McDonald and Evans are concerned, the complainant did consent to sex with Evans, after previously consenting to sex with McDonald."

Indeed. If that were the case we should unbolt all the doors of all our prisons and let them all the convicted prisoners go free.

Some people seem to think that if a counterargument exists, whatever it might be, that's sufficient to say there shouldn't be a conviction. They are wrong.

That's totally it. They don't get that "beyond reasonable doubt" means that the balance of the evidence (witness testimony and other evidence, here the CCTV of the victim in the kebab shop etc) supports the verdict to the extent that the jury reasonably make the judgement to convict. The key word is "reasonable". Not that there can be no possibility for any doubt whatsoever and as long as the defendant has any sort of rubbish explanation at all then it must be accepted by the court and he must walk free. If there is evidence against his version of things then his word may not be enough.

Is it "hate the sin, love the sinner" territory?

What part of "you have been found guilty of rape" does not mean "you are a rapist"?

Is it some sort of philosophical debate??

J M B ?@JahMMARastafari Jan 19
@littlemiss_maxy @kylieAnnEvans @GTM992 @rhallam07 No, the court never said that Ched "is a rapist".

Yup. He seems to have missed the fact that a rape conviction in court does mean exactly that Ched Evans is a rapist.

I really shouldn't look up the Ched Evans twitter feed - it's not good for me.

Seriously sabrina? Twitter really does highlight how stupid some people are. It's actually terrifying that these people walk among us.

God, there is simply no accounting for stupidity like that.

Someone on twitter argued, apparently seriously, that the court never said Ched Evans is a rapist. I had to LOL darkly to myself. I mean, if a rape conviction is not saying someone is a rapist, then what is?

Yy Petula.

I don't get this - it's a judgement. Of course both sides had a case to make and the judge and jury weighed them up. As is true in the vast majority of court cases, unless the accused has pleaded guilty. The jury listens to the evidence, if there are any points that can't be taken into consideration, the judge directs accordingly, the jury reaches a judgement.

Some people seem to think that if a counterargument exists, whatever it might be, that's sufficient to say there shouldn't be a conviction. They are wrong.

Not enough of a change to stop his victim being hounded and threatened.

Don't you think there has been a sea-change in attitudes across the UK over this? Twenty years ago, this would have been brushed under the carpet. The Police wouldn't have cared. Football fans would probably have been chanting funny ditties about him from the terraces as he knocked in a other goal for their team. But now you have the police instigating the rape charge, and hundreds of thousands of male football fans standing against him playing for their club..

When balanced against a few internet trolls, I think it's a massive shift in attitudes.

Yes I can't help reading these long-winded and clutching-at-straws posts by desperate men without feeling that they are shit-scared because out there is a woman (or women) who remember them as their rapist