To be worried about the Ched Evans threads on here

[corkysgran]

Sorry but this does seem like a witchunt to me. Many of the posters (who have signed the petition) obviously have little knowledge of the case. At one point a poster said Sports Direct would withdraw sponsorship if Evans was NOT signed and immediately others were vowing to boycott. Laughable and shows the level of thought before clicking. Online justice and the court of public opinion, not for me. As for expecting football, an industry corrupt from the very top (Sepp Blatter) and inherently sexist, to show any moral stance, get real.

I am glad CE was found guilty and think he comes across as absolute low life but I also feel uncomfortable about the mob mentality playing out here. And, for that reason, I haven't and won't sign any petitions.

It's very unfashionable to believe in the opportunity to rehabilitate. :(

Geoffrey Boycott battered his wife (but claims he didn't).
Duncan Bannantyne beat up a work colleague (and explicitly expresses no remorse about it).
Stephen Fry committed fraud.
Hugh Grant tried to pay a woman for sex.
Jonathan Aitkin sold political influence.
Loads of heavy users, even addicts of illegal drugs have continued high-profile music/performance careers that made them role models for kids (e.g. Keith Richards, Elton John, Eric Clapton...). That's leaving aside famous stories of their sexual promiscuity.

They've been tolerated to have or carry on high public profile employment. It's because sexual coercion was involved in CE's crime, isn't it? We humans are so hung up over sex. Violence isn't so bad, violence lying cheating all sorts of other sordid crimes can be overlooked. Put a sexual twist on it & we go hysterical.

Nancy, if it wasn't for the mob mentality of the sufferagettes, women still wouldn't have the vote.

FFS, has anyone ever seen a mob in action? Mobs lynch people from lampposts. Mobs beat people to death in the street. Mobs riot.
If you are seriously equating an organised boycott (and asking people to sign a petition with a mob mentality) then I worry about your poor wounded sensibilities.

There are at least 35 threads about this. How many more will there be?

Eve - yes, it was about fighting for justice. But justice has been served in this instance.

That's not what your op said. If you said, I am uncomfortable boycotting companies without being in possession of the full facts, I am sure you would have agreement.

Instead, you said that people who want to boycott companies involved in the Ched Evans case have very little knowledge of this case - that's simply not true.

You then said that online justice and the court of public opinion are not for you. I don't know what 'online justice' is or the 'court' of public opinion - but I know I have a right to spend my money how I like - do you disagree?
I also have a right to express my opinions on this case - do you disagree?

Can you try a bit harder to explain what is it you are so worried about?

Corky there have been decades of 'grown up discussion' about rape.

And what have we achieved? Women are being raped on an industrial scale and society does not know what to do about it!

The thinking is all so woolly. On the one hand accused rapists should have their identity protected because apparently this is such a henious thing to be accused of the man must be protected.

On the other hand, if you're found guilty of it and have had your appeals roundly refused, you're still able to go about your business and anyone speaking out about what you've done should shut up.

Women are pissed off. No wonder. 'Grown up discussion' never seems to end up fixing this problem. It's now time to start making real changes.

Will, I don't know the answers to most of your questions I'm afraid, but I believe that a defendant in this scenario (CM) can use the argument of 'reasonable belief in consent'.

Also, as a general point, I've followed a few threads on CE and I can honestly say that none of them have got 'hysterical'. As for 'witch hunt' and 'hounding', before people carry on bandying those terms about perhaps consider that the woman he was convicted of raping has had to change her location and identity five times so far, and was prevented by the risk to her security from spending Christmas with her family.

However, the only opinion allowed on Mn is that he should be strung up and hounded for ever more so it is pointless to say otherwise

This.

The mn bandwagon is tiresome. There have been a few well-publicised cases over the years (for various crimes) where I've done a at some of the information released and wondered about the verdict. This is one of them.

You can't talk about it on here though, at all. If you dare deviate from the 'string him up' line of thought then you're shouted down, deemed a rape apologist and scum of the earth.

The only place I've seen people whipped up into such a frenzy is on mn. There are (IMO) many worse crimes where footballers (and people in other professions) have been allowed back to their job. Don't read much about those though.

original do you think Jessica Ennis made her decision based on what is said on MN?

Honestly, there are lots of people beyond these cyber walls who are making a stand!

Pretending that MN is just a silly and isolate group of women is just another silencing tactic.

Regarding his appeal, it was initially refused, and is currently being referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Therefore, his appeal is still pending.

The only place I've seen people whipped up into such a frenzy is on mn. There are (IMO) many worse crimes where footballers (and people in other professions) have been allowed back to their job. Don't read much about those though.

Pure 'whataboutism'.

lemisscard if there wasn't the public fall out, he'd hae gone back to Sheffield. The "publicity" has been a hinderance. The only people that have benefitted are the sponsors who have been able to use this as an excuse to walk away from clubs and in doing to take the supposed moral high ground. What's distressing about this is that those of us (on here especially) that express a contrary view are somehow viewed as rape apologists. That's really not the case.

The only thing that CE should take comfort in is that all of the 'click particpation' activists will move on to something else shortly. #bringbackourgirls, #kony2012, etc.

Jessica Ennis is protecting her public image. She's probably gone a line of agents/managers/advisors as long as your arm advising her to do so. Which in her position is sensible.

I'm not sure how that's relevant to what I just said though tbh.

Many people here don't want him to play professional football again. That's true.

If you want to pretend that's the same thing as 'strung up and hounded', go ahead. You're wrong.

I suppose the jury took the view that as CM had met the girl, spent some time in her company and she accompanied him to the hotel it was more difficult to ascertain her lack of consent. She had never met Evans until he appeared uninvited by her in the hotel room.

But if she was too drunk to consent to Evans (which is what we are assuming jury based their decision on), if that is what he was convicted on, then if she was the same 'level of drunk' (and there is no way of proving anything on this particualr point) when she met both men, and the law says that someone of that level of intoxication means you don't have capacity to consent, then then the fact that she spoke to him, went in a taxi with him etc was irrelevant because she wasn't in a state to consent to doing those things.

So was CM acquitted because there was a possibility that she was giving him 'signs' or whatever that she wanted sex with him, and there was a possibility (small, but enough to bring in reasonable doubt) he didn't realise that she didnt have capacity to consent? In which case surely itnwas the same for CE, that she gave him the 'signs' that she wanted to have sex (ie, when asked by whichever one it was, if Ched could join in, she said 'yes', and the other evidence that Evans gave to suggest she was consenting) and there was a possibility (small but again enough to bring in reasonable doubt) that he didnt 'realise' that she was incapable of consent?

Argh, I don't know. The fact is a jury who heard all the evidence found him guilty of rape, and as such he shouldn't be playing football.

I totally agree the term 'witch hunt' is a way of silencing women. All people (men and women) are doing are voicing their dissatisfaction with CE going back into a career where he will influence people (Chedwyn Evans, he ducks who he wants), and will be cheered and hero worshipped every weekend for putting a ball in a net. No one, as far as I know, has said he shouldn't gain employment, or get on with his life, and no one has threatened him or similar either.

Again, Baby, CE does NOT have an appeal in. He has applied (three times now) for leave to appeal. Two applications have been turned down and the current one is being considered.

There is no appeal, pending or otherwise.

You can't talk about it on here though, at all. If you dare deviate from the 'string him up' line of thought then you're shouted down, deemed a rape apologist and scum of the earth."

Another straw argument. No one is shouting string him up, or that he should never be employed in any capacity again. Many are however consistent in holding a view that a rape conviction is incompatible with a public performance role, especially when that involves being cheered by a crowd. And not changing their mind because a few months have passed.

I have not been persuaded by any of the arguments about his innocence, simply because those who doubt his conviction have not been able to come up with a single reason why there are doubts (or at least none that do not ignore the facts as determined by a jury and described in the case reports).

There was reasonable doubt about CM (with whom she returned to the hotel room). And that is why he (and not the person who she did not go with, or invite there) was acquitted.

Will, I've already said this just a bit upthread, but there is a principle of a defendant having 'reasonable belief in consent'.

I would argue that it is those who are accusing us of a mob and 'string 'em up' mentality who are the (loaded term) hysterical ones.

It's more than a little ironic for MN posters to complain that using the terms 'witch-hunt' or 'hysteria' are attempts to close an argument down. MN posters are amongst the worst, in my experience, for attempting to close arguments down with lazy tropes and cliches. Whether it's 'LTB', 'cocklodger', 'toxic', 'red-flag', there are innumerable cliches that are regularly used on here as short-hand for thinking.

There's a certain kind of soft-left, liberal victimhood that pervades MN forums, and if you disagree with the given orthodoxy of the day (whether it's on breastfeeding, smoking, anti-fat discrimination, 'anxiety'), then you are treated as the devil incarnate.

What's the point in a discussion forum where there's no discussion? Many MNers will only be happy when we're all bleating the same bien pensant platitudes.

God, my last post is as clear as mud, I am just thinking of loud really!

There is no appeal 'pending'.

There is no appeal.

He has twice been refused leave to appeal. The CCRC cannot grant him an appeal, just make a referral, which they may or may not do in the autumn. Most likely they will not.

There is no appeal.

OGG, that stuff about Jessica Ennis us just ridiculous cynicism. She might actually have, you know, a moral view on CE?