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.

Completely agree with EatSleepRaveRepeat.

If CE had raped a man his footballing career would be over and there would be no need for a petition or even a discussion about his right or otherwise to play professional football again.

No one has suggested hounding CE.

The only people being hounded are the victim, Jessica Ennis (who has recieved rape threats on twitter) and Jean Hatchett who organised the petition (receiving rape and death threats).

Let's keep to the facts here. After all we don't want to be considered 'hysterical'.

There's no sign of any argument being 'closed down' on MN. The threads are everywhere.

Baby, I disagree. On threads using terms like LTB' etc, there is almost always a healthy and sometimes long debate. The opposite of a 'closed-down' argument.

Thankfully people will challenge sexism, racism, homophobia, corruption and so on

I am thankful we live in a country where we have the freedom to do this and have the power to possibly make changes if no one bothered changes would not come about for the better for is all

Fine this way to protest is not for you but to claim it is a witchhunt is wrong it is a stance on what should be acceptable and not acceptable in our society

If this was not challenged no changes would take place

This is about how society deals with violence towards women particularly rape and sexual assault and opinions have to be challenged they have been in the past and made changes

John Farley my op did say I was worried that people were agreeing to boycott firms without being in full possession of the facts and I gave an example which has been explained away as a misunderstanding which apparently often happens in threads. Of course you have the right to spend your money as you wish and to express ypur opinion, as do I. I find the general tone of the threads uncomfortable and yes, slightly hysterical. That is not an attempt to shut anyone up (though I have been told to STFU several times for expressing my view).

^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.^

Haha! And fantasising that MN is anything but a self-selected group of mainly bourgeois women agreeing with each other is delusional!

It's like the current fad for reporting 'Twitter storms' in the trash media. Just because a handful of mouth-breathers supposedly take offence at something a sleb says, then all agree with each other on it via Twitter, and then the Daily Mail reports it does not make it a major campaign! Nobody outside the same small self-referential groups knows or cares.

Hey Babycham, aren't you the original thinker? It's PC gone mad, innit? We're all going to hell in a handcart, you couldn't make it up, could you? It's all that elf n safety stuff making us all touchy feely and believing the orthodoxy about breastfeeding and anxiety ( nice use of air quotes there, by the way). Good job you're there to fight the lefty-liberal menace.

The bbc reports "trending" in social media

Like your dig at 'bourgeois women'. I'm a working class man, but don't let that get in the way of your theory.
As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts.

To people want CE to never be able to work again? Is that the ultimate aim?

Ok, I really didn't want to get involved as I am worried I will be hounded or flamed, but I have a genuine question about this which I discussed with my DH at the weekend.

The first time my DH and I had sex, I have absolutely no recollection of. We had been drinking together since 3pm, went to various bars and then onto a restaurant where I ordered steak and chips but then couldn't eat a mouthful of! DH (back then just a lad I had met on holiday where nothing had happened, and then we decided to go for a drink when I got back to the UK) picked up the bill and we moved on (and on, and on! I was only 23). Eventually went back to DH's ex flatmate's flat and I wandered off upstairs to sleep it off. I then came back downstairs, only in my bra and pants and said to DH "are you coming upstairs or what? (I remember all of this so far).

The next thing I remember it is 4am and I wake up naked with DH and go to the loo. I come back to bed and say something like "well I'm glad we just slept as I wouldn't want to come off as easy" and DH looks mortified and says "er, we were at it for an hour - we were both having a lovely time!". I then think, sod it, this is what I wanted all along but I can't remember the first time, so we might as well have another go which I will remember! Which we do, and then I get dressed in the morning and leave - start going out together and 2 years later we get married blah blah etc etc.

So was I raped?

He can work in loads of jobs, Nancy.

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

But how could it be proved beyond all doubt that CE didnt have 'reasonable belief in consent?' Surely it could be argued that because CM spent more time with the victim, it would have been more obvious to him that she wasn't in a fit state to consent.

Urgh, I hate that it seems like I am defending CE, I'm really not I am totally satisfied with his guilty conviction.

I am not sure he will ever work again. I just can't see it.

I'm attaching a link to the Court of Appeal judgement. It outlines quite a lot of the detail of the case, how the judge directed the jury, the reasons for CE wanting to appeal etc.

It's worth reading as it gives insight to what went on in the court room.

www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

His FIL offered him a job in his company.

Nancy I haven't seen anyone express the view that he should never work at any job again. Employment is an important part of rehabilitation afaik.

Boobz - by mumsnet standards, you probably were.

Back in the real world, no, IMO.

will the jury asked themselves could anyone have seriously believed the victim gave consent here.

The jury decided that they could not.

just not be allowed to work at the only job he can actually do?

RandomNPC, you're making some huge assumptions about me and my politics and, surprise surprise, you're completely wrong. I am, it seems, an original thinker in comparison to you.

There are many examples of 'PC gone mad' on these boards, just as there are many examples of people mindlessly supporting some of the more absurd excesses of the 'nanny state' (and 'elf 'n' safety regs).

Taking a considered position on these issues does not make one a foaming-at-the-mouth UKIPer. And anyway, when the People's revolution comes, the bed-wetting liberals will be the first against the wall.

Sparkling, he has been guaranteed a job (a well-paid one at that) in his multi-millionaire FIL's business. That's if the FIL's rumoured offer to pay his wages and any lost sponsorship revenue at Oldham doesn't sufficiently oil the wheels to allow him back into a public role in professional football.