Ched Evans Should NOT be allowed to train at Sheffield United !! Wales next?

[DuelingFanjo]

seriously?
I am absolutely appalled. I really really hope this doesn't mean he will ever play for Wales. I will definitely be taking part in some kind of protest if that happens.

And thank you for your constructive post. It's more for me to think about.

No idea who this dude is but he appears to have started up a blog just to write this entry (linked to on Twitter by Ched's mummy)
blog.mikesimmons.co.uk/

The last couple of paragraphs about her seeking compensation are particularly grim. And wrong - unless he only has a few months to go, 6 grand isn't enough to pay off a mortgage is it? Still I'm sure she thinks having to live in fear and change her identity twice is worth it for all those pink minis.......

I am also assuming, having read that blog, that if mike Simmons woke up in a hotel room, covered in piss, having lost his keys and wallet, went to police and was told later on that he had been anally penetrated by someone he had never met before who let themselves into the hotel room he was in and apparently he had been well up for it, that he wouldn't feel in the least bit violated and tha he would have no interest in taking it further. He would just think 'ooops, silly old slaggy me' and go on his merry way.

Interesting question balonz. I'd love to hear his answer to that one.

myempireofdirt As if being raped and going through a court case isn't enough, victims should also stand up and face those who threaten their safety and call them a liar?

I will join you in shouting fuck off

If you want to read what male football fans think (blades fans and otherwise) may i recommend the football ramble

(Picked one random thread, i've read a few and they are all similar)

Much more of a split in opinion than 50:50 in what i've read...

The straw clutching that shines through CE's supporters is just astonishing. Someone claiming 'legal training' for a couple of years is showing themselves up to be an utter moron IMHO. The notion that police wanted to make a name for themselves as opposed to, you know, following the evidence, is just typical of the utter paranoia being spouted about poor victim 'ched'.

I'll qualify this by saying I have no legal training, and suggest that when the police spoke to the hotel receptionist & cab driver when trying to track down the missing bag, watching the CCTV footage of the takeaway, finding out how poor Ched managed to find his way into a hotel room by lying to the reception & then freely admitting having sex with someone he'd never clapped eyes on before entering the room - the same person who has already told the police she thought her bag had been stolen, and who had no memory of what happened, not that she thought she'd been raped - I would suggest that following the evidence (his own evidence) led poor Ched to being charged & ultimately convicted of rape, & I applaud those investigating officers for doing their job & charging those involved with the crime it became evident from their investigation that had occurred. The idea that no one else would have ended up charged with rape, after the evidence trail that the police followed, is nothing more than fantasy bollocks, IMVHO.

The whole case makes me feel very uncomfortable.

As far as i'm aware, CE was convicted because it was believed the victim was incapable of consenting due to alcohol - even though both CE and the other one said she did vocally consent to sex with CE.

Wheras the other one (sorry I don't know the name) was acquitted because the victim went back to the room with him.

Going back to a hotel with someone is not consent to sex. And if she was drunk enough to be incapable of consenting to sex with CE (regardless of him acquiring a key and letting himself into the room which IMO is irrelevant...she could still technically have consented or not consented when he was in there) then she was also incapable of consenting to sex with the first one.

As far as I can see, they either should have both been convicted or not. The fact that only the one of them was is...odd. Personally I feel that either there's an unconvicted rapist walking around out there, or that a serious miscarriage of justice was done with CE. I wasn't on the jury, I can't say which. But I can see no reason for one conviction at all and I find it...surprising...that so many seem to be accepting that the first guy walked free whilst damning CE to hell forever. As what they did was essentially the same.

If someone has 'reasonable belief' of consent it isn't rape

But that's exactly the point.

The whole case was built on the testimony of CE and his mate. Presumably the mate testified that she consented to him. The fact that she was very drunk was not enough to convict him.

Yet there were two testimonies that said she consented to CE verbally, those of CE and his mate. They both said she not only verbally agreed but asked CE to carry out oral sex on her.

Yet CE was convicted because a) they were disbelieved and b) it was decided that due to alcohol she was incapable of consent.

Why were the testimonies of BOTH of them disbelieved in the case of CE having sex with her, but the testimony of JUST CE's mate was believed for the case of him having sex with her? The incapability to give consent due to alcohol would have been the same with both. The fact that she returned to a room with CE's mate is irrelevant as that does not constitute consent.

It makes no logical sense.

that Blog by Mike Simmonds says

"Of course, the high profile of the characters involved would have made identifying the victim inevitable and she should have been advised of this."

does he maybe mean that the police should have said 'look love, you don't want to get into this because your name is going to get out there. Why not just leave it alone and get on with your life'?

In other words women know your place, don't report or get involved in cases to do with rape and sexual assault because people are going to illegally release your name and we'd rather not have to deal with that, there's a good girl.

pfft.

And Rod Liddle was definitely not speaking sense on the clip I have watched.

Just dropping by this thread again to say how much I love Jessica Ennis.

"even though both CE and the other one said she did vocally consent to sex with CE."

My understanding was that the rapist Ched Evans got consent from his friend Clayton McDonald not from his victim.
Getting consent from someone else is not consent.

I am also reliably informed that Rapist Ched Evans was wholly unbelievable on court while Clayton McDonald was much more articulate.

Going back to a hotel with someone is not consent to sex. And if she was drunk enough to be incapable of consenting to sex with CE (regardless of him acquiring a key and letting himself into the room which IMO is irrelevant...she could still technically have consented or not consented when he was in there) then she was also incapable of consenting to sex with the first one.

There is a legal defence in that if he had 'reasonable belief' that she consented he has to be found not guilty. It doesn't mean he didn't rape her, it means he believed it wasn't rape.

I know that might sound difficult but try this. A man who sleep walks gets up in the night, still asleep, drove his car to his in laws' house and kills his MIL.

This actually happened in Canada in the 1980s, the killer was acquitted of murder because he was asleep. That doesn't mean the killing didn't take place, it means he had a legal defence.

Another thought, you are semi conscious, naked, a teenager and you find yourself in a hotel room with one man. Another man comes in, both are fit healthy men considerably bigger than you. You realise there are two more men outside the room shouting through the window. You hear the men discuss 'having a go'. How much choice do you really have? What are they going to do if you say 'no'?

The testimony was that she consented, not his mate. The only disparity was who asked her if CE could join in - CE or his mate (as they couldn't remember apparently)

I am also reliably informed that Rapist Ched Evans was wholly unbelievable on court while Clayton McDonald was much more articulate

Not quite sure what to say to that. It means that CM is more confident than CE. Not being articulate can very often be a sign of being upset when testifying in Court and either end of the spectrum is no real indication of guilt or innocence.

Why were the testimonies of BOTH of them disbelieved in the case of CE having sex with her

Maybe because their testimony wasn't the same, they both said the other asked (one man asked the other, neither asked the woman). CE did not deny having sex with her.

upthehammers

Please someone come back and answer why Jessica and Charlie didn't feel the same way about marlon king playing for SU.

Obviously none of us know how they felt about King.

Perhaps the effect of campaigns like the mumsnet #ibelieveher are finally trickling through and more people are prepared to speak out and take a stand against violence against women.

Ennis is increasingly high profile now (more than ever IMO), could be she feels that with that comes the responsibility to speak out.

Maybe being a parent has changed how she feels about violence towards women.

So there's my suggestions. Why do you think they didn't speak out against King?

WIM, the jury did not specify the grounds for their conviction. The judge mentioned the lack of capacity in his summing up, the jury did not. They may have considered that, as the victim went through a lengthier period with CM before penetration, he had reasonable belief in her consent. They may have believed that CE did not actually hear her say yes and that that was a lie. They may have believed that she did not have freedom not to consent to CE because of the vulnerable position she was in. They may have believed that, as the drink kicked in, she had capacity to consent to CM but not CE.

We can speculate but we don't know.

WalkingInMemphis

I think you are confused by the 'legal defence'.

It doesn't mean that someone wasn't killed/assaulted/raped/whatever crime, it means that some people have a defence.

Think about WWII, many many people killed.

If you were killed in a concentration or death camp then your death is murder and a war crime.

If you were killed by a bomb being dropped on your home you are just as dead but the pilot of the plane that dropped the bomb will not be charged with your murder.

You may be a politician and be aware that the enemy are planning to sink a particular ship. If you do nothing the attack will take place and hundreds will die, but if you warn the ship the enemy will know you have access to their communications and you won't be able to listen in any more.

By doing nothing you cause many people to be killed, but you are not even questioned about it.

All of the above cause death, but only one is classed as a crime.

The defence could argue there was reasonable doubt if you accept the premise that going to someone's room while falling down drunk is in itself consent. I saw one documentary where the CPS in one case (years ago) considered leaving the pub with a man consent! I guess that was the background against which Keir Starmer felt he needed to improve the situation with prosecutions.

Plenty of very drunk people can speak but are in no fit state to make any decision. Getting "consent" for anything be it only taking a tenner from their purse is manipulative and deceitful. "Reasonable belief of consent" is a mealy mouthed way of putting chancing their arm and a get out clause for the opportunist.