Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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

941 replies

DuelingFanjo · 11/11/2014 11:04

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
DuelingFanjo · 25/11/2014 17:07

Was there a phone call in the taxi as well then? I have never seen that mentioned before, I assumed that he turned his taxi round on the text. Also, were his brother and mate in the taxi with him then?

According to the report from the court in the Mirror link, yes, he called CM but then claimed not to remember what he talked about. And,Yes, apparently his brother and friend were in the taxi too.

OP posts:
Neverbuyheliumbalonz · 25/11/2014 17:21

Ah ok, thanks dueling

DuelingFanjo · 25/11/2014 17:22

Here's what the Western mail reported from the testimony in the court room (or possibly read out in the courtroom from the statements given at the police station?

(Reported on 18th April 2012)
Asked by Detective Constable Philip Williams if they were looking for a girl, Evans said: "No, we could have had any girl in that nightclub. "It's not uncommon for us to pick up girls. We're footballers, we're rich and we've got money, that'swhat girls like." Evans said girls particularly liked McDonald's company. "Girls in Rhyl think he still plays for Manchester City, some think he's [England defender] Micah Richards," said Evans.

Evans said that he and several friends went to the hotel. While three waited outside and tried to look through the window, Evans went into the room.

What is crazy is that there are match reports from the 16th of April where Ched Evans is playing!

Here is more from earlier in the trial, including another witness. Don't know what people think but the receptionist clearly let both men in - so would have known that she was in there with two men which personally I think is totally out of order given that he also testified that she was very drunk.

"Shortly before that, Port Vale footballer Clayton McDonald, also 23, had arrived in a taxi with an "extremely drunk" woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons.
Both men deny raping the 19-year-old.
At around 4am, on Monday, May 30, 2011, Mr Burrough said he saw a taxi pull up and a man, later identified as McDonald, and a woman get out.
"She was extremely drunk. She was not very steady on her feet. She had a blank expression," he said. The pair went into a hotel room and 10-15 minutes later Evans arrived in a taxi, asking for the keys to room 14, while two friends waited outside.
St Asaph-born Evans told the receptionist he had "booked the room for a friend", who'd since gone home.
Mr Burrough later saw Evans' two friends outside the open window of room 14, and the court has heard claims one of them filmed the alleged rape on a mobile phone. The receptionist later carried out a check outside room 14, and said he could hear sounds of "squealing and panting" coming from inside.
It was clear people were having sex in the room, he said, adding that he heard the voice of one man ask the woman to perform a sexual act on him.
Around a quarter of an hour later, McDonald returned to the reception asking for a taxi number.
Another witness told the court she had earlier seen both Evans and McDonald in the Zu Bar, Rhyl. The pair had bought drinks for the woman and a friend, and McDonald asked for her number. She received a series of texts from him during the early hours of May 30, one of which asked her to come to "room 14".

Another witness, a friend of the alleged rape victim, told the court that when she'd left the Zu Bar at about 2.30am, her friend was not drunk and seemed "happy". But later that morning she was awoken by a loud banging at the door. It was her friend, who said she had no recollection of what had happened. The witness said: "She was hysterical, constantly crying."

The alleged victim, who the prosecution say was too drunk to consent to sex, told police she thought her drink may have been spiked.
Forensic scientist Pauline Lax told the court there were traces of cocaine and cannabis by-products found in her urine at "very, very low levels" but not in her blood.
That indicated the woman had taken these drugs between "two and eight days beforehand".
Tests on Evans and McDonald found only caffeine in their blood.
Evans, of Penistone, Yorkshire, and McDonald, of Crewe, both admit having sex with the complainant, but deny rape.
The case continues.

OP posts:
Chippednailvarnish · 25/11/2014 17:26

The very fact that his brother attempted to video tape what was going on completely discredits anything else CE's family have to say on the matter. How could you defend your brothers' behaviour, without being totally lacking in any sense of common decency?

They all sound completely vile.

limitedperiodonly · 25/11/2014 17:56

I wonder how confident his lawyers were at the beginning that he would be found not guilty? I mean the police and CPS must have been pretty confident about getting a conviction otherwise they wouldn't have taken it that far would they?

I don't know either Neverbuyheliumbalonz but I'm impressed that the CPS pursued it. And the police, though I don't think they're responsible for the ultimate decision to prosecute.

Neverbuyheliumbalonz · 25/11/2014 17:58

Ew, reading that report has made me feel a bit queasy Sad

"She was extremely drunk. She was not very steady on her feet. She had a blank expression,"
Mmmmm, sexy. In fact so sexy that the temptation was too much and Ched Evans just couldn't resist cheating on his girlfriend for the very first time Hmm

I cannot understand how the website is allowed to stay up actually. It is so far removed from what was actually seen and heard in court in terms of how things are worded, the CCTV etc. it's so biased I'm surprised hey haven't been made to take it down.

Viviennemary · 25/11/2014 18:07

I think the others should have been prosecuted. And perhaps hotels should look again at their security procedures. Just handing out keys to rooms to anyone who asked. I wouldn't like to be a guest there. The brother should absolutely have been prosecuted for attempting to video tape. I thought that was a crime in itself.

Neverbuyheliumbalonz · 25/11/2014 18:09

Don't know what people think but the receptionist clearly let both men in - so would have known that she was in there with two men which personally I think is totally out of order given that he also testified that she was very drunk.

I know, what was he thinking? Actually he was probably thinking 'just another pissed up slag', as like so many, he doesn't have much of a concept of 'consent' and that if you are that drunk and a man has sex with you, it's rape. It's the only explanation, otherwise he would have stopped it.

He had probably seen it a million times before Sad

YonicScrewdriver · 25/11/2014 18:31

Balonz, I think that's a bit unfair. He may have thought CM and the woman were a couple and CE had come back to help out as she was so drunk. More likely, he didn't really think about it at all until asked to recall matters by the police.

VM, hotel didn't hand out a key to "anyone" who asked; CE had paid for the room so his name was probably on the system somewhere along with CM's name.

I don't know what crime the filming would be (Nb I think it was done by friend not brother) as I think it was quite indistinct ) and never distributed (so wouldn't be distributing indecent images or something)

Viviennemary · 25/11/2014 18:34

I thought filming somebody under these circumstances (without their consent) was a crime. I'm sure I read it was. It's like voyeurism. (sp?) My opinion is those people who aided and abetted should have been prosecuted too.

Neverbuyheliumbalonz · 25/11/2014 18:39

Balonz, I think that's a bit unfair. He may have thought CM and the woman were a couple and CE had come back to help out as she was so drunk. More likely, he didn't really think about it at all until asked to recall matters by the police.

Yes, maybe I am being a bit unfair I guess. I agree he probably hasn't given it any thought until questioned by the police.

Andrewofgg · 25/11/2014 18:49

Voyeurism is indeed a crime and I am surprised there were no prosecutions over it. Too late now, the publicity over CE would make a fair trail impossible. In any event I would guess that the tape, card, disc, hard disc, whatever, and all copies have been long, long since destroyed.

Delightful family, aren't they?

YonicScrewdriver · 25/11/2014 19:25

Andrew, I believe the police viewed the images rather than them being destroyed, which is why we know they were indistinct - think they were on a camera phone in the dark so not too surprising.

I doubt the friends could've been charged with aiding and abetting, only CM, and the CPS went with a rape charge for him.

Andrewofgg · 25/11/2014 19:32

In that case Yonic whoever held the phone is lucky not to have been charged - perhaps they all blamed each other and there was just not enough evidence to charge any of them.

I agree about the aiding and abetting. As for CM, well, from what I have read I can see why the jury might have been in reasonable doubt about his state of mind, and there it is, they were and he was acquitted. That's trial by jury at work.

YonicScrewdriver · 25/11/2014 19:35

"perhaps they all blamed each other and there was just not enough evidence to charge any of them."

Yeah, probably! Or maybe the evidence was given in such a way that it wasn't admissible?

(Not a lawyer)

Andrewofgg · 25/11/2014 19:53

(Not a lawyer)

Lucky you, Yonic!

limitedperiodonly · 25/11/2014 22:52

We can't prosecute everyone and when I say 'we', I mean it, because prosecutions are in the name of the Crown, which represents all of us.

The prosecution has to be in the public interest and there has to be a reasonable prospect of conviction.

Given that generally people don't look kindly on pissed girls complaining of rape at the hands of men who don't seem to have done them any real harm - not my judgment; just most people's opinion - I am amazed and impressed that the CPS took this on.

How many times do you read of a failed case, quite often a case involving sexual offences, where a newspaper bangs on about how much it has cost the public purse?

Often, I think it's worth the candle whatever the outcome, but that doesn't stop aggressive questions being asked.

I'm thinking most recently of investigations of historic sexual abuse which were pilloried right up until the successful prosecutions of Rolf Harris and Max Clifford and of phone hacking.

Wonder why the papers got so angry about those ones?

As for Ched Evans's website; there's nothing illegal or obscene about it. Objectionable, maybe. But they are allowed their say.

And the phone footage? There's no law of privacy in the UK, which I think, on balance, is a good idea.

There's a principle of privacy under the Human Rights Act, and we all know how popular that is in various papers, which says the right not to be photographed where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

That would cover someone filming you through a hotel bedroom window. But you'd probably have to take out a civil action. Seeing as the footage hasn't been published and the bigger offence is being raped, and that's been taken care of, it doesn't really seem worth it.

limitedperiodonly · 25/11/2014 23:05

I meant which says you have the right not to be photographed where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

It happened in another country, but do you remember how many people on MN argued that Kate Middleton should have kept her top on when photographed on private property from several hundred yards away?

I feel that some people would feel the same way about a prosecution being mounted in defence of a pissed tart - not my description but the description of many others.

YonicScrewdriver · 25/11/2014 23:10

In the event that someone had filmed consensual sex without the woman's knowledge but she had later found out somehow and complained to police, I suspect public interest might be seen as served by police gojng round and having a word?

limitedperiodonly · 25/11/2014 23:24

I agree, the police at the very least should have a word. But they and the CPS probably wouldn't take it further, even if it was published, if it was taken down quickly.

Prosecutions are very expensive and if the matter appears to have been dealt with, that's generally the end of it.

That's not necessarily what I think should be done, but that's what happens.

As I said, I'm pleased and amazed at the bravery of the CPS in taking this on, because you can imagine the headlines and demands for blood if both men were acquitted - and an acquittal was likely.

DuelingFanjo · 26/11/2014 08:36

It's worrying that Ched Evans left through a fire escape, presumably allowing anyone else who may have been lurking outside to walk in :(

OP posts:
Andrewofgg · 26/11/2014 08:46

DuelingFanjo If a fire escape is used for its proper purpose it's not likely that anyone will be trying to go the other way. And if it is used for an improper purpose (by an escaping rapist or a bill-dodger) the user is not going to bother to stop anyone going in. It seems to me that if you have a fire escape there is that possibility - and who wants a hotel without a fire escape?

LineRunner · 26/11/2014 08:56

What was his excuse for using the fire escape, given that the hotel receptionist already knew he was in the room?

What did he do with the key?

Why didn't the fire escape alarm go off?

Andrewofgg · 26/11/2014 09:19

I don't suppose he stopped to make an excuse, LineRunner, and not all fire escapes have an alarm even if they say they do. As for the key they are usually only usable for that room and that night.

MissPenelopeLumawoo2 · 26/11/2014 09:40

Linerunner, I think he said that he left via the fire escape as he was worried his girlfriend would ring him! Presumably he did not have to answer if that was the case. Seems like a very poor excuse , but then his whole story is.