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.

I doubt a solicitor would say that about anal rape of a man. Or even anal rape of a woman for that matter.

It seems to me that there's an attitude of 'so, he stuck his penis in her vagina when she was drunk. That's what it's for. Is it really such a big deal?' which is worrying.

That cee lo green article is terrible. It's not rape if she's unconscious? Wow.

That lawyer sure ain't no Gareth Peirce.

Mezzalune your beliefs on this subject make me feel sick.

Hopefully you're just a troll as I don't believe there are people around that really hold these views.

Four, I believe there are a lot of people who have had sex when they were too drunk to have the capacity to consent. They themselves don't think of what happened as rape so they are genuinely puzzled that the law stipulates capacity to consent.

I was referring to the belief about Ched Evans's victim not being a victim of rape - sorry for confusion.

He has served his time and should be allowed to return to work, assuming anybody wants to sign him.

I really don't understand this outrage about whether he ever gets paid to kick a ball again. Where's the outrage over his paltry five year sentence? Or the fact he only served half of it in prison?

Where are the petitions and the protests about lenient sentences for rapists?

Strange that a solicitor is also having trouble with this

No, the solicitor is not having trouble with that at all. The solicitor is simply pointing out that the fact someone has been convicted of a crime does not necessarily mean they are factually guilty. There are miscarriages of justice in criminal cases all the time. I am not saying this was a miscarriage of justice and I certainly think the solicitor comparing Evans to the Guildford four was silly.

I believe there are a lot of people who have had sex when they were too drunk to have the capacity to consent

FWIW juries have generally been reluctant to convict in cases where the victim was drunk, especially where the drink was self administered, unless the victim is so drunk that they are completely incapable, i.e. barely conscious. The law does not give any guidance as to when someone ceases to have the capacity to choose to consent. This is not intended as a comment on this particular case.

One of the people working on the Birmingham Six case was a child abuser, though he got away with it. I know this for a fact. I believe his victims.

But I digress.

Only to say that the legal profession has its fair share of sexual abusers.

you don't just get to return to your job after being convicted for rape. Anyone who thinks think that should add that conviction, and the fact they are our under licence and on the SOR to the disclosure form on a job application and see exactly how many interviews they manage to get.

He also seems to be implying that because his client doesn't believe himself himself to be guilty, there may be a miscarriage of justice.

Which suggests he needs to reaquaint himself with the law that convicted his client.

The rape apologists are back.

Some people probably think being completely incapable of consenting is just passive consent.

Sigh.

I'm nearly at the point where I can't be arsed to correct people anymore Fanjo

Here you are lurkernowposter

knock yourself out

Strange that a solicitor would use the word 'alleged' about a criminal found guilty and convicted of his crime. Gilhooley is a pure fool and has just been completely 'owned' on BBC R Ireland, and admitted he hadn't actually read the facts of the case

Jean Hatchet has also done a fabulous deconstruction of his now removed piece on the EVB site. I can't link (fucking phone), but if someone else could, it's a brilliant piece - far better journalism and understanding of the law than Gilhooley.

Yy - all that "worst thing evah to be found guilty of a crime when you genuinely believe you are innocent" - well, ignorance of the law is no defence and, y'know, I think the victims have it worse...

What a tool to have blogged without reading facts.

is it this Eve?