Aibu to be slightly depressed by the Ched Evans debate?

[BinarySolo]

I feel so angry and upset by the debates going on at the moment. Not so much whether he should be able to play football again, but it seems to be still being debated as to whether or not he's guilty and whether his victim was at fault for being drunk and going back to his hotel room.

Really. Who would ever report a rape? It needs so much evidence just to get to court let alone get a conviction, and then when your attacker is convicted you still have your character questioned and people speculating about whether it was really rape.

Not to mention idiots like Judy Finnigan stating that his crime wasn't that bad because it wasn't violent and the victim 'wasn't physically harmed'.

FFS. No wonder we need ad campaigns explaining what rape is.

Ched Evans is a rapist.

He was convicted by a jury of his peers. He wasn't 'done' by evil forces of the State. His friend, a black man who we might think might be subject to more prejudice in the predominantly white town where he was tried, was acquitted.

If Evans had pulled her first while she was tottering in the takeaway shop and taken her back to the cheap hotel, fucked her and then called his mate McDonald to have a go while McDonald's relations were filming it then things might have been different.

But they're not.

He's a rapist.

No idea why they are hounding her

The attitude of CE, his family and girlfriend towards this case baffles me.

I don't understand how they can't see it was rape.

sounds like the first guy practically pimped her out so god knows how he got off with that!!!

Something in this case that I don't understand is how two people were accused of the same crime. One was acquitted and the other found guilty?

They were both accused of rape but not of the same thing.

Example

You and your dp/dh/dw/dwhatever get drunk, go to bed and have sex.

Then your dwhatecver's mate lets himself in and asks your dwhatever 'can I have a go?'

Can you see there was a difference.

I don't think Clayton was 100% innocent, but I think the him having met the woman and her going back to a hotel with her means he could have believed she consented, or the jury thought that there was 1% of doubt.

But as the OP said, this is irrelevant, he is a rapist, he does not think what he did was wrong, he is still a danger.

Pimping her out is vile but it is not rape. I can see how - depending what they made of the witnesses - the jury acquitted the first guy (does not mean he is not guilty, just not beyond reasonable doubt) and convicted Evans.

The attitude of CE, his family and girlfriend towards this case baffles me. I don't understand how they can't see it was rape.

I can understand that alpaca and I can see how that drives them to attack her.

Their world view was shaken when she, or more properly the CPS, prosecuted Ched Evans for rape and that a jury of ordinary people convicted him, therefore deciding that Ched Evans is a rapist.

Ched Evans is a rapist. His supporters are wrong. The rest of us are right.

Ched Evans is a rapist. His supporters are wrong. The rest of us are right.

Spot on, except that his close family are to be forgiven. The parents of the two men now in gaol for their part in the Lawrence murder gave them alibis wich the jury did not believe. It's what close family do.

MyEmpireOfDirt None of us can know unless it happens to us.

Defendants accused of DV are regularly bailed to Mum's address - she stands by him whatever he's done.

The parents of the two men now in gaol for their part in the Lawrence murder gave them alibis wich the jury did not believe. It's what close family do.

I agree with you Andrewofgg. It's screwed up but possibly understandable.

When I watched the This Morning interview with Evans's girlfriend and sister I felt somewhat sorry for them. They are deluded. It was made even more sinister when I reading a Grace Dent article in the Independent that mentioned that the girlfriend's dad is the driver behind the ChedSite in support of the rapist Ched Evans.

Sorry, I'm too lazy to link, but it's easily found.

That's all kinds of wrong. As I said before, if my boyfriend had cheated on me, let alone raped someone, which he did, there's no way my dad would have defended him.

He'd have been telling me to walk and not look back.

I am baffled as to what types of family values these people have. And that's not just them, but also naice people like Finnigan and Madeley.

And I wouldn't give anyone a false alibi

Really, MyEmpireOfDirt. I'd like to be that noble, but I couldn't promise it.

Perjury is very rarely prosecuted.

First, it needs two witnesses - the only case where corroboration is now needed.

Second the CPS does not prosecute people who alibi their nearest and dearest. If Maxine Carr had been married to Huntley she would not have been prosecuted for trying to protect him.

And third, if there is an acquittal for perjury it casts doubt on the original conviction. Imagine if Dobson's and Norris's parents had been prosecuted for perjury and acquitted!

Rape isnt prosecuted all that often, thats not a green light to rape people, so why should that be the case for pergury?

The thing I find most depressing is that there seems to be some difficulty in accepting that 'rape' is a crime in itself.

I've read lots of specious arguments in the wake of Finnigan's comments along the lines of "if you are bundled into a van, threatened with a knife, have your jaw broken and raped, that is obviously 'worse' than if it happens in a hotel room when you've had too much to drink" without any awareness that the rape is the same crime in both cases, but in the first case it is accompanied by other crimes; assault, kidnapping, abh etc.

It seems some people seem to need there to be aggravating circumstances to even see rape. They talk about 'rape' as if it the same thing as 'sex' and there seems to be an undercurrent still, latent in Finnigan's comments, that putting up with a certain amount of 'unwanted sex' is part of a woman's lot in life, and don't make a fuss now dearie.

I have never agreed with Sarah Vine on anything, and thought her opinions on most things were fairly fatuous at the best of times, but her article on this had me raging. As though she and Finnigan are taking some kind of superior intellectual stance on this, seeing nuances where others don't, positing that it's "unsisterly" to disagree, when what they are really doing is making the world a nicer place for rapists and a more dangerous one for all women.

As an aside, on the bbc reports on this, the text message MacDonald sent read "Got a bird".

to all for whom this has stirred up more than 'unpleasant' memories.

Great post, spook. Said what I was thinking, but in a much more eloquent fashion.

I'm not suggesting that people commit perjury because they know they probably won't be prosecuted! But it's a fact that they won't and you can see why people do it for their families.

Spook that's a fabulous post. Totally agree with you.

Indeed, but they had perjured themselves in their own (civil) cases - not in a relation's criminal trial. The CPS policy is, I think, based on the concern that the jury might think that in that case perjury is part of the job description.