[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Don't prosecutors have to prove beyond reasonable doubt to get a guilty verdict?
There must have been sufficient evidence or he wouldn't have been found guilty, twitter hate campaigns with these online vigilantes are really unnerving.

Well that's the thing, people on Cheds side or (anti this girls side) seem to be saying it like she consented but changed her mind the next morning and he was found guilty of rape. There must have been more to it then just that for a jury to find him guilty of rape

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well that's the thing, people on Cheds side or (anti this girls side) seem to be saying it like she consented but changed her mind the next morning and he was found guilty of rape. There must have been more to it then just that for a jury to find him guilty of rape

Maybe.....Maybe Not


Sometimes even juries can get it wrong, plus we are now being told there is new evidence that was not presented at the trial.

All in All I think this may prove to be an unsafe conviction and subsequently overturned.





.

[Kyle]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well that's the thing, people on Cheds side or (anti this girls side) seem to be saying it like she consented but changed her mind the next morning and he was found guilty of rape. There must have been more to it then just that for a jury to find him guilty of rape

You mean like Ched's family, his girlfriend and Sheffield United fans?

On another note I thought his sister and girlfriend's undisputed appearance on this morning last week was a joke tbh. Have them on it's fine but at least have someone to dispute everything they Said.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Maybe.....Maybe Not


Sometimes even juries can get it wrong, plus we are now being told there is new evidence that was not presented at the trial.

All in All I think this may prove to be an unsafe conviction and subsequently overturned.





.

Juries can but judges can't... either the evidence is there or it isn't.
'new' evidence sounds dodgy, but let's see what happens.

[arista]

Ched is a rapist, says his aunt: Relative attacks footballer for not showing remorse and believes he deserved to go to prison

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz3H3tOPJHt

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Don't prosecutors have to prove beyond reasonable doubt to get a guilty verdict?

Supposedly but this, then, assumes that innocent people don't go to prison which is unfortunately just completely false. There are undoubtedly plenty of innocent people in prison... no system is perfect, and our criminal justice system (whilst admittedly better than many other countries, even developed ones, *cough cough* South Africa *cough*) is a system that is FAR from perfect.

Originally Posted by Nedusa

Sometimes even juries can get it wrong, plus we are now being told there is new evidence that was not presented at the trial.

(Allegedly) something that couldn't be mentioned during the trial, as it pertained to a different case that was thrown out of court, is that she made the same accusation against two professional Rugby players at an earlier date... and they were both aquitted. Now, call me cynical, but if she really had been attacked by two Rugby players and that aquittal was wrong, would she really have then been putting herself into that situation again? And if the aquittal was right and no such attack occurred... would it not be logical to assume that she was simply "trying again"?

No one can say for sure, I suppose.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by StupidHoe

Nope. His job elevates him to a celebrity of sorts, his face could be in a paper somewhere and his victim sees it by accident. He should be allowed a job back in conjunction with football but not the one he had, keep him in the background.

I agree, Sorry but glorifying a rapist back into celebrity status is just as bad as carrying on a punishment. The message that sends out is that it doesn't matter if you rape somebody you can still go back to being a celebrity.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

I agree, Sorry but glorifying a rapist back into celebrity status is just as bad as carrying on a punishment. The message that sends out is that it doesn't matter if you rape somebody you can still go back to being a celebrity.

Not meaning to play devil's advocate here but... is it really his fault that his chosen career (professional football) carries celebrity status? It's not like, say, Big Brother celebs who are seeking fame for the sake of fame... it just so happens that football has a lot of interest and so footballers are recognisable public figures. I'd say that most pro sportspeople set out to make a living from engaging in sport, rather than seeking fame / celebrity...

Also, celebrity isn't exactly something you choose. He isn't "going back to" being a celebrity. He is still a celebrity. Just (allegedly) a celebrity who raped someone. Rolf Harris is still a celebrity. Gary Glitter is still a celebrity. ... Jack the Ripper is a celebrity, of sorts.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Not meaning to play devil's advocate here but... is it really his fault that his chosen career (professional football) carries celebrity status? It's not like, say, Big Brother celebs who are seeking fame for the sake of fame... it just so happens that football has a lot of interest and so footballers are recognisable public figures. I'd say that most pro sportspeople set out to make a living from engaging in sport, rather than seeking fame / celebrity...

Also, celebrity isn't exactly something you choose. He isn't "going back to" being a celebrity. He is still a celebrity. Just (allegedly) a celebrity who raped someone. Rolf Harris is still a celebrity. Gary Glitter is still a celebrity. ... Jack the Ripper is a celebrity, of sorts.

Agree. People have said he shouldn't play again because he doesn't deserve to be watched by thousands of people every week, be featured on MOTD (not that he would as a L1 player at best but anyway) or have his face in the papers yet all those things are only really indirect consequences of being good at his job, its not being a celebrity for the sake of being a celebrity. Those arguments also sort of imply that it wouldn't matter so much if he wasn't in the papers, if he wasn't on TV, which is effectively saying it'd be ok for him to return to football if he was bad at it - and thus not in the public eye so much - but not if he's good at it.

Also agree with the second point. It's still unclear whether Evans will play again but he has still been plastered across the papers every day and stories are constantly being run on what he's been up to since his release and the various reactions to his story. True he might fade into obscurity gradually if he was never to play but celebrity status isn't something that can immediately be flicked off like a switch.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Supposedly but this, then, assumes that innocent people don't go to prison which is unfortunately just completely false. There are undoubtedly plenty of innocent people in prison... no system is perfect, and our criminal justice system (whilst admittedly better than many other countries, even developed ones, *cough cough* South Africa *cough*) is a system that is FAR from perfect.

Well as the point of a trial is to consider the weight of evidence to suggest that people go to prison when there is none... especially in a rape case is strange.
His friend was acquitted so there must have been some evidence on Mr Evans to tie him to the rape tight enough to secure a conviction?

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Not meaning to play devil's advocate here but... is it really his fault that his chosen career (professional football) carries celebrity status? It's not like, say, Big Brother celebs who are seeking fame for the sake of fame... it just so happens that football has a lot of interest and so footballers are recognisable public figures. I'd say that most pro sportspeople set out to make a living from engaging in sport, rather than seeking fame / celebrity...

Also, celebrity isn't exactly something you choose. He isn't "going back to" being a celebrity. He is still a celebrity. Just (allegedly) a celebrity who raped someone. Rolf Harris is still a celebrity. Gary Glitter is still a celebrity. ... Jack the Ripper is a celebrity, of sorts.

Yes but you don't see any of them still working in the main profession do you? I.e. As a TV presenter/musician etc

[bots]

A lot of people seem to have missed the point, by a long margin.

Firstly, it is not the guilty person that makes himself a celebrity, this is not under his personal control.

Secondly, someone who has served a prison sentence has done their time, and not acknowledging remorse is their human right of defense in not admitting to the crime in the first place. Perfectly acceptable human right.

Thirdly, the employer has the right to refuse employment on the grounds of the prospective employee having committed a criminal offense. The choice is theirs. If they choose to employ, then they accept the potential consequences.

Very simple really.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Not meaning to play devil's advocate here but... is it really his fault that his chosen career (professional football) carries celebrity status? It's not like, say, Big Brother celebs who are seeking fame for the sake of fame... it just so happens that football has a lot of interest and so footballers are recognisable public figures. I'd say that most pro sportspeople set out to make a living from engaging in sport, rather than seeking fame / celebrity...

Also, celebrity isn't exactly something you choose. He isn't "going back to" being a celebrity. He is still a celebrity. Just (allegedly) a celebrity who raped someone. Rolf Harris is still a celebrity. Gary Glitter is still a celebrity. ... Jack the Ripper is a celebrity, of sorts.

Jack the ripper is infamous rather than famous and that's specifically for being a criminal.
You only hold celebrity status whilst you are celebrated, once you are defamed as glitter/harris I don't feel they are a 'celebrity' in the real sense of the word merely an ex singer and presenter imo.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

A lot of people seem to have missed the point, by a long margin.

Firstly, it is not the guilty person that makes himself a celebrity, this is not under his personal control.

Secondly, someone who has served a prison sentence has done their time, and not acknowledging remorse is their human right of defense in not admitting to the crime in the first place. Perfectly acceptable human right.

Thirdly, the employer has the right to refuse employment on the grounds of the prospective employee having committed a criminal offense. The choice is theirs. If they choose to employ, then they accept the potential consequences.

Very simple really.

'It’s against the law to refuse someone a job because they’ve got a spent conviction or caution, unless it’s because a DBS check shows that they’re unsuitable.'

https://www.gov.uk/exoffenders-and-employment

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'It’s against the law to refuse someone a job because they’ve got a spent conviction or caution, unless it’s because a DBS check shows that they’re unsuitable.'

https://www.gov.uk/exoffenders-and-employment

If I understand that correctly they're only unable to turn down an ex con "if the conviction or caution is ‘spent’". It then only says a conviction will be 'spent' if the sentence was for 4 years or less, any more than that and it never will be. Evans' sentence was for 5 years so his conviction won't be 'spent' and employers would be free to turn him down for having a criminal record

Of course it wouldn't matter either way anyway considering Evans is currently a free agent so no team is obliged to take him on criminal record or not.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

'It’s against the law to refuse someone a job because they’ve got a spent conviction or caution, unless it’s because a DBS check shows that they’re unsuitable.'

https://www.gov.uk/exoffenders-and-employment

It very much depends on the job, and the context of the offense, the employer always has the right of refusal, no matter the letter of the law

[the truth]

what about anyone who commits a crime then eh? what about players who have gone to prison for gbh and came out to play football? endless sports men and women have committed violent crimes or taken drugs and return to play sport. the man is a pro footballer hes been tried in a court fo law, hes been to prison for 2 and a half years, done his time for his crime. now he should be allowed to return to his job playing football. a man cannot be tried twice for the same crime and the kangaroo court have no right to force him to pay twice for the same thing

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

It very much depends on the job, and the context of the offense, the employer always has the right of refusal, no matter the letter of the law

That's not true, you have the lwa on your side if an employer is using previous convictions as a reason to not employ you, that was the whole reason for legislation wasn't it?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

If I understand that correctly they're only unable to turn down an ex con "if the conviction or caution is ‘spent’". It then only says a conviction will be 'spent' if the sentence was for 4 years or less, any more than that and it never will be. Evans' sentence was for 5 years so his conviction won't be 'spent' and employers would be free to turn him down for having a criminal record

Of course it wouldn't matter either way anyway considering Evans is currently a free agent so no team is obliged to take him on criminal record or not.

They can refuse if the probationary following release is not 'spent', it won't ever be spent as you say as his sentence was over 4yrs.
It will be at the clubs discretion as he will pose no threat in what he does, other than be a rather odd specimen of what we expect representatives of sport to be.
But they paid 3 million for him so money will be the focus over any moral or ethical debate no doubt.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

They can refuse if the probationary following release is not 'spent', it won't ever be spent as you say as his sentence was over 4yrs.
It will be at the clubs discretion as he will pose no threat in what he does, other than be a rather odd specimen of what we expect representatives of sport to be.
But they paid 3 million for him so money will be the focus over any moral or ethical debate no doubt.

any club can sign him or not sign him. hes not contracted yet , at least I don't think he is , so its not an issues. if they do sign him then use this as a reason to break the contract then id expect that club to be in trouble

[Crimson Dynamo]

Jess Ennis wades into this debate and it may be the clincher

"Jessica Ennis-Hill wants her name to be removed from a stand named after her by Sheffield United if the club offers convicted rapist Ched Evans a contract.

United, who play at Bramall Lane, are to allow Evans, 25, to train with them.

But United manager Nigel Clough said it had "nowhere near been decided" whether or not to re-sign Evans.

"Those in positions of influence should respect the role they play in young people's lives and set a good example," said Olympic champion Ennis-Hill.

"If Evans was to be re-signed by the club it would completely contradict these beliefs."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30046618

[Locke.]

Good news for the fans considering they didn't want the stand named after her anyway

[Livia]

Jessica Enis is an athlete. Athletes have been allowed in the past to continue their careers despite being exposed as cheats after taking drugs. That's not a great example to young people, is it. So I find her wading in to this situation a little disingenuous.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Livia

Jessica Enis is an athlete. Athletes have been allowed in the past to continue their careers despite being exposed as cheats after taking drugs. That's not a great example to young people, is it. So I find her wading in to this situation a little disingenuous.

I would imagine her PR team had a say in this perhaps. It could be damage limitation?

[Brother Leon]

Originally Posted by Locke.

Good news for the fans considering they didn't want the stand named after her anyway

This