I have no firm position on this. Would you have him teach your teenage daughter in College (assuming he was a teacher and not a footballer, but still a convicted rapist)?
Sounds like I've been raped a few times. In my teenage years most sex was when I was rat arsed and so was she.
What about if was the official envoy of say ..........a sovereign state? Possibly associated with .......the most famous family in the land? Clearly we'd have to wait for a trial and the outcome. But would we be allowed to discuss it?
Convicted means you've been caught and its on record. How many times have you been a naughty boy and got away with it?
I believe that, legally, there are certain professions that a convicted rapist cannot pursue, as someone outlined earlier. The law has already spoken on this matter. If someone, a newspaper columnist for instance, wants additional professions added to the list of proscribed careers, she should be lobbying her MP for change, not rabble rousing in rags that cater to the LCD of society. And WTF right has a rabble-rouser to add additional sentencing in respect of convicted criminals who have served their sentence in prison and, having been released from prison, now need to earn a living. Said rabble-rouser presumably has a list of proscribed professions in mind? From professional footballer all the way down to wearing sackcloth and ashes, begging for scraps to survive, no doubt. The rubbish that person was spouting made me cringe.
No matter what your view is, it's a fact that this will dog his life/career from now on. Some say it should, some say it shouldn't, but it will. And I don't suffer with LCD, It's OCD and I love it.
I can't get my head round the fact that she was sober enough to consent to sex with the first guy,(who was found not guilty/acquitted/whatever),but too drunk to consent to sex with the second. It all sounds a bit daft,,especially as it's been reported that the Police charged them both on the basis that she was too drunk to consent prior to entering the hotel,(as evidenced by CCTV of the victim at the kebab shop and of her entering the hotel with the first guy). (1) Kebab Shop CCTV:too drunk to consent (2) Hotel CCTV:too drunk to consent (3) Having sex with the first guy:sober enough to consent,(no CCTV so I assume witness evidence was believed?) (4) Having sex with the second guy: too drunk to consent,(no CCTV so I assume witness evidence was disbelieved?) It just doesn't make any sense at all....
We are not privy to the jury's deliberations but ... yeah ... it's hard to understand the decision-making process and conclusion.
Quite so. A jury listens to each defendant giving evidence and being cross-examined in the witness box. It is possible that a jury may decide it believes defendant A but disbelieves defendant B, and gives verdicts on that basis even though they are inconsistent. The Court of Appeal Criminal Division might overturn a conviction, if it appears no reasonable jury properly directed could have reached that conclusion. Then again, the CACD might decide that the conviction was correct and it was the acquittal which was unreasonable - the acquittal, of course, cannot be reversed.
And unless you are party to all the evidence, defence and prosecution this is all speculation. A jury who did hear both sides, made a decision based on the facts presented.
Skirt around the issue all you like. The real reason its news os because a footballer makes shed loads of cash. If he were a farm hand in a field, no biggie. If he were a film star (Woody Allen?!) no biggie.
Ain't a money thing, it's an attitude thing. A lot of these idiots think they have high status cos of the big wages and the flash cars. That ain't status, it's a bad attitude, and almost certainly why Evans got the guilty vote.
Wouldn't it be much simpler if the death penalty was introduced for this kind of offence? We wouldn't have to worry about rapists getting jobs. Sorted.
Another interesting viewpoint: CHED EVANS: Not the account you’re being given by the mainstream media | The Slog.
This all sounds a bit Russian show trial to me. You can't expect someone who thinks they were wrongly convicted to show remorse. Whilst it seems to be more than likely that most women who say they were raped were, whatever the guy says, that cannot mean that women are always right in every instance. And this case (from what I am learning here) sounds particularly dodgy. There is also rape and rape. People who are at least half cut and go back to hotels with people they know want to get frisky with them are hardly the same people who are attacked in parks from behind bushes. The whole case sounds very ambivalent. On that basis, would you deny someone, who has spent 2 years inside for a possible crime, the chance to practice their profession? I'm not sure you would.
