Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

To ask you all to sign petition regarding Oldham and Ched Evans

999 replies

floatyflo · 04/01/2015 18:48

Actually I don't believe I am being unreasonable. But wanted to bring it to attention.

MN seems to be a quiet on this today but I think the fight should still go on. I can't link to it as I am so not tech savvy enough but it is on change.org. (Same person whk set up the Sheffield Weds one so of you sogned that one it is pretty easy to locate).Already has over 9000 signatures so please please please continue to sign and share!

OP posts:
YonicSleighdriver · 05/01/2015 21:14

Same as that scary ad campaign about batman climbing some scaffolding - if you are too drunk to know how to climb safely, don't climb stuff.

iamtheeggman · 05/01/2015 21:16

The only person she can sue is Ched Evans. But her motivation is not and never was financial. I don't think she could do so without compromising her anonymity (again).

As others have pointed out, the reason people tend not to pursue damages for rape is that most rapists tend to spend a long period of time in jail and to lose their livelihood as a result. They end up as men of straw and are not worthwhile defendants in a civil action for damages. The lottery winner rapist was an unusual exception to this. I believe he was convicted of rape before his lottery win, and therefore it could not, even by the most cynical person, be suggested that her allegation was motivated financially.

Civil cases tend to be pursued where the complainant has either failed to secure a criminal conviction and wants to have another go in the civil courts, or where there are other unusual reasons for pursuing a civil action, such as the death of the defendant as highlighted above.

merrymouse · 05/01/2015 21:16

And really it is stupid to have sex when you are that drunk, particularly with a stranger. Apart from anything else, if you are too drunk to establish consent you are too drunk to discuss birth control.

LineRunner · 05/01/2015 21:18

30,857.

ForalltheSaints · 05/01/2015 21:18

I have signed it.

kattykinski · 05/01/2015 21:21

Thanks again. And omnipotent, even though it might have sounded like it, I wasn't really saying that I feel sorry for young men who may be accused of rape. I know hardly any rapes are reported. I'm not a big fan of alcohol anyway, it makes people take risks and do things they wouldn't normally do which can have very bad consequences

iamtheeggman · 05/01/2015 21:24

merrymouse The law does not decide what is reasonable in the circumstances. The question is left to the jury. In this case, judge asked the jury to decide whether or not RCE's belief that the victim had consented was reasonable.

Separately, you must appreciate the irony of criticising people's judgement as to the wisdom of having sex when drunk, on the grounds that they may not have the judgement to decide whether or not their partner is consenting!

YonicSleighdriver · 05/01/2015 21:25

It would be ace if the message from all this was "think you might be over the limit? Get a cab. Think your partner might not have capacity to consent? Wait for another day."

lurkernowposter · 05/01/2015 21:27

As nauseating as it is that convicted rapists are freed after serving half their paltry sentences I wont sign a petition.

Other rapists are allowed to get on with their lives without being harassed by the media and the same should apply to Evans. He has served his time and it's unfair to punish him twice.

Besides, two sponsors have already threatened to walk away from Oldham, I don't think they will sign him.

LineRunner · 05/01/2015 21:30

Have you read the petition wording, regarding the victim?

iamtheeggman · 05/01/2015 21:30

lurker The sponsors have walked away because of the petition! And he has not served his time.

ilovesooty · 05/01/2015 21:35

And at least two sponsors are still prepared to sponsor the club if Evans is signed - despite the petition. They don't seem to appreciate the revulsion so many people feel.

Willferrellisactuallykindahot · 05/01/2015 21:36

Other rapists are allowed to get on with their lives without being harassed by the media and the same should apply to Evans. He has served his time and it's unfair to punish him twice.

Actually I think you will find that anyone having to declare a recent conviction of rape will find it difficult to find employment, particularly if they are being very picky about which career area it is that they want to return to.

Why is Ched Evans any different?

And no one is saying he can't 'get on with his life', they are questioning whether it is right that he is allowed to saunter back into a privileged, high paid job which involves adulation and being a role model, when he has shown no ackowledgemet that he has done anything wrong.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 05/01/2015 21:38

Other rapists are allowed to get on with their lives without being harassed by the media and the same should apply to Evans. He has served his time and it's unfair to punish him twice.

This really, really isn't true. I 'know' a convicted rapist who is still currently serving a prison sentence. He was a journalist. There really is no question that he will return to his previous career. It's been made quite clear. ANd I have no sympathy. Commit rape - there will be certain professions you cannot and should not attempt to rejoin.

HermioneWeasley · 05/01/2015 21:42

Signed

iamtheeggman · 05/01/2015 21:43

This is the lottery rape case involving the civil damages claim I referred to earlier.

www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jan/30/ukcrime.davidbatty

iamtheeggman · 05/01/2015 21:45

And the eventual outcome here. obviously, this is another very very unusual fact pattern.

www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan/04/lotto-rapist-shirley-woodman-iorworth-hoare

ilovesooty · 05/01/2015 21:48

I don't think Oldham Athletic players will be all that well paid.

I still don't think the club - or any club - should have him on their payroll.

merrymouse · 05/01/2015 21:50

Egg, I meant in the sense that in many cases a law will be drafted so that 'reasonableness' is an issue. I am more familiar with tax law, but there are plenty of instances where judgements are made based on what could be reasonably assumed or what would be a reasonable course of action.

Tests of reasonableness are not completely subjective and open to the whim of the judge or jury. Cases can be reviewed and taken to a higher court. I don't think there was another judgement that the jury could have made in this case, in the light of the evidence that has been made public.

I don't think there is irony - if you are too drunk to judge whether your partner has agreed to have sex, don't have sex. If drinking puts you at risk of breaking the law, don't drink.

OmnipotentQueenOfTheUniverse · 05/01/2015 21:52

Yes I remember the case where the rapist won the lottery and the victim went for damages.

What has that to do with this case? You said upthread you thought her going for damages in that case was perfectly reasonable, I'm not sure what the link is?

CheshirePanda · 05/01/2015 21:55

Signed.

iamtheeggman · 05/01/2015 21:59

Merry perhaps my statement about irony was a little misplaced. Sorry!

A higher court will not be reviewing the jury's decision that RCE's apparent belief that the victim consented was not reasonable. That is simply not a ground for appeal. RCE may appeal on the grounds of an error of law, but he has already tried that twice in the Court of Appeal. He may appeal on the grounds of new evidence, but he has also tried that in the Court of Appeal by adducing new expect evidence on intoxication. There are other more technical grounds of appeal, but they aren't really relevant here.

The potential appeal is the thing I don't understand. If the CCRC has some reason to refer the case for a further appeal, then no one seems to have any idea what the grounds are.

Incidentally, and this really is pedantry, the key determination that the jury made was that the VicTim did not consent to sex. This is not really a judgement as to reasonableness, it is a subjective judgement as to her level of intoxication. It is very important in this case, because she herself produced in evidence as to whether she consented or not.

lurkernowposter · 05/01/2015 22:00

"they are questioning whether it is right that he is allowed to saunter back into a privileged, high paid job which involves adulation and being a role model, when he has shown no ackowledgemet that he has done anything wrong."

That's it though isn't it, Evans is getting special treatment because he is seen as having a privileged, high paid job. Well it's not his fault many footballers are ridiculously overpaid is it?

I seriously doubt he would recieve any adulation or be seen as a role model by anyone.

Sabrina, yes other rapists will find returning to their old lives hard but there is nothing in the rules of football or the terms of his license preventing him doing just that. Just harassment from the media which others just as guilty as him don't have to face.

He is being treated differently just because he happens to play football for a living and that is unfair.

iamtheeggman · 05/01/2015 22:03

Omnipotent - just ignore it if you don't think it is relevant. there is no particular point I'm trying to make here. There was a discussion above about how rare it was for victims to seek damages for rape. This is one of the unusual situations in which that has been done. It is interesting to note that she donated all of the damages to charity, so it is clear that even in this case there was no financial gain. I wondered whether anyone might like to read the news articles.

runes · 05/01/2015 22:04

Signed.