You're wide of the mark, Pete (see what I did there?) Sometimes the sport is violently intolerant of some folks who have similarly coloured scarves (e.g. Aston Villa & West Ham United). Aside from that, you're pretty much on target (see what I did again there?)
And a 'large' proportion of worlds society seems to get derive pleasure from playing/watching/managing or running the business of the sport. Ergo , large proportions of society are.......... Is that what you meant by " the whole sport" ? The sport, the whole sport, and nothing but the sport!
Dear oh dear,sweeping statements are creeping back in.... The whole of football is racist?homophobic?intolerant?...really? There are a whole lot of perfectly decent human beings that play football that have none of those views...in fact I'd hazard a guess that the majority of players and staff are upstanding,fair-minded people. But nice people and good football played fairly rarely makes headlines,so the portrayal of the sport is invariably less than positive. Football has it's wrong 'uns,same as rugby,cricket,and any other popular,avidly reported sport...
I see Oldham have refused to sign him. ....he's taken that as a yes and will turn up for training on Monday.
Ahem. Excuse me, Sir. I direct you to your original post in which you commented the victim was "up for it", stating the circumstances for the accused were analogous and that he may or may not be guilty. "His mate got treated differently,even though both men said the same thing,ie,the woman was up for it." He's guilty, been convicted on account of this and is still serving his sentence. His proclamation of innocence is based not only on his misinterpretation of consent but upon facts such as the Prosecution Barrister, whilst expressing compassion upon the announcement of the guilty verdict, said "sorry" to Ched's family. He, his family and advisors tout this as a mark of his innocence and clearly state as such. They say he said "sorry" because Ched is not guilty and the prosecution barrister knows this and so apologised because he had to do his job. I kid you not. Evans is delusional. I find it amusing that only seconds before the prosecution barrister showed such compassion to his family, Ched himself celebrated the co-defendant's not guilty verdict by banging heads with the co-defendant in the dock.
The sweeping statement,I refer to is that,The whole of football",etc. Just like,"The country mourned for Diana"atently untrue,as neither I,nor anyone else I was acquainted with,mourned for Diana. If I'm brutally honest,I made a good few quid trucking stuff into Westminster Abbey for her funeral,as,(surprise surprise),drivers hours rules were suspended to get the gear in on time...Anyway,I digress: What I find odd is that two people,accused of committing the same crime with the same woman,(who can't remember anything that happened),get such differing penalties? As someone who has suffered because of the incompetence of someone supposed to be a,"legal professional",I am fully aware that Judges are not infallible in their judgments.(Im not saying that all legal professionals are incompetent,nor judgments wrong) If the facts are as reported,(even by those in the media determined to damn Ched Evans and all who sail in him),then the whole thing looks...odd...to say the very least. But even then,he has not been banned from playing professional football,so as far as I'm concerned when he's been released from prison,(unless drunken women are in danger on the pitch),he should be allowed to play without further vilification from the gutter press.
Just been re-reading this thread, but now with benefit of hindsight; this week Ched Evans has been acquitted of rape following a retrial. It seems to me this is the right conclusion. Unfortunately there have been reams of vicious newspaper editorials, nasty social media posts etc, - some of them horrible to Mr Evans, some mean to the complainant X, but nearly all of them unreasonable and ill-informed. So it goes.
Does that mean she will now be prosecuted for wasting police time, and he will sue her for her 'story' money for the defamation and ruining of his career?
A few months ago I was at a sports lunch and several club chairmen were on stage doing a Q&A session. One of those was Oldham's chairman (can't remember his name but he's a new York based lawyer). Anyway when asked about the Ched Evans situation he said that at the time they were thinking of signing him he was put under intense pressure to not sign him (by sponsors and the local council and community). However he said at this lunch that there was new evidence that had come to light and that he would be acquitted. He was indeed correct.
I don't have a daily paper so not completely up to speed with this but from what I have heard she never accused him of rape in either court case, she said she couldn't remember what had happened, it was the police and Crown prosecution that pursued the rape case.
I haven't a clue, not been following it, what i said is what I heard on the news yesterday. I might be completely wrong. Steve
Indeed. If a woman is unconscious, or nearly unconscious, she obviously would not be able to remember what happened, and that fact is not a reason for not bringing a prosecution. Miss X in this case has apparently said throughout that she could not remember whether she consented or not. I cannot understand why anyone thinks that makes it OK to be nasty to her.
Why was it brought forward and who made the complaint? He was convicted first time round, what's different now?
I wouldn't want anyone to think I'm justifying or demeaning the seriousness of rape, nor that every 'not guilty ' should end with the accuser being accused. From the limited cuttings I've seen on this, it just seems entirely unfounded and a play to make another 'celebrity '.
what sort of name is Ched anyway..... sounds like Chad.... which sounds American....and they cant play football with their feet
You will recall that the issue in the case was consent, i.e. was the woman X capable of consenting and did she actually consent, or did E believe X was consenting. E said he believed she had consented. Since the conversation between them before, during, and after sex was very limited, what gave him this impression? E's evidence was that at a crucial stage X told him to "fuck harder"; if true, that would amount to implicit consent. X could not remember what she said, if anything, nor whether she had consented. So what evidence could shed light on the likelihood of X having said these words? Two male witnesses came forward, both of whom had had sex with X around the time in question. Both of them gave evidence that X had told them to "fuck harder" under almost identical circumstances. We cannot know for sure what the jury thought, obviously, but it seems likely that they were persuaded there was a reasonable chance E was telling the truth on this point, and that consent could therefore be presumed. Hence the acquittal. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 Section 41 is relevant here. Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 Evidence about a complainant's sexual history is generally excluded but with certain exceptions [see s 41(3)]. The CACD decided that a relevant exception applied in this case, which is why the evidence was admissible.
