Ched Evans signs for Chesterfield.

[11122aa]

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36575406
I am a bit surprised by this. Didn't expect any team to hire him until after the retrial has happened and then only if he was found not guilty. What's everyone's else reaction. It's all happened really quietly compared to last time.

What would the non-rape cultured man do if a mate let himself in without permission when he was having sex with a strange woman?

Tell him to get out, come back later, knock first, no?

Totally agree detestable and have also made that point on other threads. Just challenging prh's specific reason for believing the judge was wrong.

I'm with Lilac here:

'I still believe you were raped whether you remember it happening or not. In fact, the very fact that you don't remember it happening is more likely to make me believe you were raped as you were so drunk as to be rendered unconscious

Actually, thinking about it, the case we've just had in America. That young woman was also unconscious. She probably doesn't remember being raped either. The two fucking awesome guys going past were the ones who saw the rape in progress. If she doesn't remember it happening does that make it any less of a rape?

Because I get the feeling that's what some people are getting at with Ched. 'Oh, well, she doesn't remember anything and didn't make any allegations'. So, therefore, what? If the footage of it on the phone turned up and showed she was clearly out of it would it be accepted as 'proper' rape then?

Clutching onto 'she didn't actually accuse him of rape' is pretty much grabbing hold of a rape myth and running with it if you ask me.

And I still maintain that anyone spending their time picking apart the case (on many threads, not just this one) and pointing out the holes in it but only wrt to the accused, who is, at best, a complete scumbag who behaved in a predatory manner towards a woman he had never met before, is worrying. To do that as a man, on a female-oriented website where there are many, many survivors of rape and sexually assault is pretty disgraceful.

Thank you lilac

Imagine if Ched Evans was your dad

I wonder if prh has some sort of 'Ched Evans Klaxon' as they seem to crop up on every single thread about the Chedster!

prh is, I believe, a lawyer, who crops up on lots of threads about high profile cases.

And awful lot of education threads. Probably posting most days.

Just challenging prh's specific reason for believing the judge was wrong

Let me be clear. I think Evans is a detestable individual. As the case has been sent back for retrial I make no judgement as to whether or not he was guilty of rape but his behaviour was appalling. All I am saying is that, like the Court of Appeal, I think the judge's sentencing comments don't square with the verdict. That does not mean the verdict was wrong. It does not mean Evans was innocent. It simply means that quoting the judge and saying this is why Evans was convicted is questionable.

Clutching onto 'she didn't actually accuse him of rape' is pretty much grabbing hold of a rape myth and running with it if you ask me

Just for clarity I am not in any way saying that is evidence that she was not raped. However, there are a number of false versions of this case in common circulation and many people believe that the victim says she was raped. Some of the abuse she has (disgustingly) faced has been from people accusing her of making a false rape allegation. It is therefore, in my view, important to be clear that she did not make any rape allegation.

pointing out the holes in it but only wrt to the accused

I have not pointed out any holes in the case. None of what I have said in any way weakens the case that was made against Evans in court. It simply reflects the case that was made and not the artificially strengthened version of the case that many people seem to believe.

As Meditrina says, I tend to take an interest in high profile legal cases. Although most of my posts are on education-related topics, mainly helping people with appeals, you will often find me on threads about legal cases. I usually try to correct misinformation (or misinformed comment) published in the press and explain the legal aspects of the case. Occasionally I will take sides (Amanda Knox, for example, where the prosecution case unconvincing). Normally I remain neutral.

If you believe that Evans is guilty you will probably think I am defending him. I am not. If someone on this thread was propagating some of the misinformation that appeared on the website campaigning on Evans' behalf I would be correcting that as well. I genuinely have no opinion on whether or not he is guilty. I was happy with the original guilty verdict and saw no particular reason to question it. The judges remarks in sentencing always seemed somewhat questionable but that was a question about how the jury arrived at it's verdict. Questioning the judges comments does not in any way challenge the verdict, just the judge's interpretation of that verdict.

Now there is new evidence. I don't know what that is. I have some suspicions based on my knowledge of the case but I am only guessing. We will find out when the retrial happens. I will support the verdict whatever it is.

I think we're drifting from discussing whether Ched should be signed by Chesterfield into the legal minutiae of the rape case. I don't believe a detestable individual such as Ched should be in a role where he is being hero worshipped by fans and having his name on Chesterfield shirts. Fans of lower league clubs are really involved with the players and don't want to be around Ched and his mates.

". I don't believe a detestable individual such as Ched should be in a role where he is being hero worshipped by fans and having his name on Chesterfield shirts. "

Yes to you here

I don't know why anyone is surprised.

Adam Johnson continued to be played by his club even after he had admitted the crime to them.

Maybe having a disgusting rapey individual is some kind of good luck charm in what passes for sport now?