Transfer News Ched Evans

HampshireYellow said:
You're wrong - I suggest that you do what you originally said and read the details of the case. She absolutely did not allege that she didn't consent. She woke up with no memory of what happened. No offence, but the opinion of someone who doesn't even know the basic details of the case doesn't hold much weight with me, moral compass or not.
Click to expand...
So if someone is unconscious they automatically, by default, give their consent? It doesn’t take a high court judge to know that’s b@llocks.

Tap your moral compass, I think it’s broken.
 
ubermeistervonmeat said:
so this wonderful island of ours is hardly a moral high ground is it - yet OUFC for some reason is supposed to be - bizarre
Click to expand...

Is it bizarre?

The OUFC team represents a community and a fanbase. They are, like it or not, role models for a lot of younger fans.

Is it really outrageous that parts of the OUFC fanbase should want to hold its players to a higher standard of behavior than simply what is or isn't proven to be a criminal offense in a court of law?

We're a spectrum. Some people don't care about morality, or lack of it, in a player as long as they can play. Others have a higher bar, and only want decent human being to be wearing the yellow and blue.

Not going to say that either viewpoint is right or wrong, but I don't think that either is bizarre.
The contrast is also why this thread is 10 pages long and rising. And so were the threads on McCormack and Chapman.
 
DorsetYelloww said:
So if someone is unconscious they automatically, by default, give their consent? It doesn’t take a high court judge to know that’s b@llocks.

Tap your moral compass, I think it’s broken.
Click to expand...

What?

You said, and I quote, "The case was brought on the basis she alleged she didn’t consent"

The Guardian reported (a paper which was very anti-Evans) "The prosecution said she could not possibly have consented, as she was too intoxicated. She has never alleged that Evans or McDonald raped her."

So, she has not, as you said, alleged that she didn't consent. She couldn't remember what happened.

IF she was unconscious, yes that would be rape. But she isn't saying she was unconscious. Ched Evans and Clayton Donaldson said she was conscious and willing. What evidence have you seen that makes you think she was unconscious? (which we both agree, would make it rape)
 
HampshireYellow said:
What?

You said, and I quote, "The case was brought on the basis she alleged she didn’t consent"

The Guardian reported (a paper which was very anti-Evans) "The prosecution said she could not possibly have consented, as she was too intoxicated. She has never alleged that Evans or McDonald raped her."

So, she has not, as you said, alleged that she didn't consent. She couldn't remember what happened.

IF she was unconscious, yes that would be rape. But she isn't saying she was unconscious. Ched Evans and Clayton Donaldson said she was conscious and willing. What evidence have you seen that makes you think she was unconscious? (which we both agree, would make it rape)
Click to expand...
Unconscious doesn’t necessarily mean you are not awake. It means you are not conscious, as in what is going on around you, as in if you are extremely drunk. As you’ve said the prosecution said she could not possibly have consented because she was too intoxicated.

I don’t understand your point? What I’ve said is consistent with what you’ve quoted the prosecution said.

Getting someone blind drunk and then doing whatever you like to them because they can’t physically say stop doesn’t make it right does it?

The key thing is the level of debate on here is a clear indication the case is not black and white.
 
Drunk consent is still consent though and it's not illegal to sleep with a consenting, drunk person - and as he didn't spend the evening with her but entered the room, asked if he could join in, was told yes, then I don't see how he 'got her blind drunk', or could even have known how drunk she was. For all he knew she'd had a few but was fine.

The case isn't black and white I agree, and it's fair to say you don't like his behaviour, but not to say he was involved in 'serious crime'. He's not been involved in any crime, as he was found not guilty, and at worst he slept with someone who was a bit drunk. I find it very unlikely that she was passed out on the bed and he just carried on.
 
HampshireYellow said:
Drunk consent is still consent though and it's not illegal to sleep with a consenting, drunk person - and as he didn't spend the evening with her but entered the room, asked if he could join in, was told yes, then I don't see how he 'got her blind drunk', or could even have known how drunk she was. For all he knew she'd had a few but was fine.

The case isn't black and white I agree, and it's fair to say you don't like his behaviour, but not to say he was involved in 'serious crime'. He's not been involved in any crime, as he was found not guilty, and at worst he slept with someone who was a bit drunk. I find it very unlikely that she was passed out on the bed and he just carried on.
Click to expand...
Clearly the law did think there was a crime otherwise he wouldn’t have been found guilty to begin with.

The prosecution, as you’ve quoted, said she couldn’t have consented. It’s not me saying she didn’t consent, it was the legal team who brought the case against Evans.

I don’t see how you can claim at worst he slept with someone a bit drunk, when the prosecution obviously saw it differently. That’s a bit of a bold claim that.

Anyway I’m not going to guess what happened. The case is well documented and my take on it is different to yours. As is my moral compass.
 
Malc said:
I don't know if this thread is the longest about a non-OUFC player or not.
But it certainly has turned into the most boring thread about a non-OUFC player.

And yet I still have to read it!
Click to expand...
Please, please close it...please ??
 
All this comparison to McCormick is a bit silly imo. Ched Evans wasn't proven innocent, he was found not guilty.

In UK law innocence is a given unless a jury finds the defendant guilty. Nobody has to prove their innocence ever, the CPS has to prove their guilt.


Therefore KR is asking for opinions from fans about someone who hasn't committed any crime. Does he do that for any other potential player?

Whether we like how Ched Evans chooses to live his life is irrelevant. Do we know how the other members of our team live? No. They could be shagging a girlfriend or 2 or 3 behind their wives back but we don't know because it's not in the public domain.

The Secret Barristers blog post is very good BTW.

I think there's more to this and Evans has already decided not to come. I don't know what KR hoped to achieve by putting the press release out.
 
DorsetYelloww said:
Clearly the law did think there was a crime otherwise he wouldn’t have been found guilty to begin with.

The prosecution, as you’ve quoted, said she couldn’t have consented. It’s not me saying she didn’t consent, it was the legal team who brought the case against Evans.

I don’t see how you can claim at worst he slept with someone a bit drunk, when the prosecution obviously saw it differently. That’s a bit of a bold claim that.

Anyway I’m not going to guess what happened. The case is well documented and my take on it is different to yours. As is my moral compass.
Click to expand...

You are guessing what happened, because you clearly think he is guilty despite being found not guilty - but not once have you said what evidence you are basing this on, apart from several factually incorrect claims.

None of us know truly know what happened on that night, all we can look at is the evidence that we’ve seen, and the fact that the latest jury, given all the evidence, found him not guilty.

Also, saying your moral compass is different to mine (read: better) smacks of pompousness to be honest. Can you elaborate and specify how, and why we are different? Or will you just reply on trite soundbites as you have all thread? I think what he did was morally wrong, because he had a partner. I also find creeping into a hotel room to sleep with some girl your friend pulled while your mates try and film it from the window grotty and disgusting. But I don’t think a crime was committed - and the law of the land agrees with me. You don’t, but can’t articulate why.
 
Malc said:
I don't know if this thread is the longest about a non-OUFC player or not.
But it certainly has turned into the most boring thread about a non-OUFC player.

And yet I still have to read it!
Click to expand...
Close it Malc
 
I can hear it now: "We were in for Evans, but the board decided that due to the supporters' feelings on the matter we have ended our interest. We will now start looking elsewhere and we expect to have some further news within 48 hours. Or a week. Well, before the season anyway, unless we have to wait until the end of the transfer window..."
 
DorsetYelloww said:
The whole saga involving Evans is well documented and everyone is free to make their own mind up whether he is whiter than white or not. If you think the British Justice system is flawless, you need to wake up.

As for your mate, Didcot, he chose to initiate the level of conversation. I’m glad it got the reaction I had hoped.
Click to expand...


"I’m glad it got the reaction I had hoped" ???? That does not make any sense at all. The guy is a good contributor to the forum, and you simply want to goad him it seems, crazy.

If you're a tub thumping anti Ched Evans person, then why not act adult and provide an alternative view, rather than sounding like you have conquered Everest, with, "I'm glad it got the reaction it did."

I think a padded cell and the NHS forum, rather than this forum is more appropriate for you.

We're all Oxford fans with different views, why try to respond as a pig hill fan might.
 
DorsetYelloww said:
So you don’t think the witnesses, who only came forward once it was known there was a reward for supporting the defence, couldn’t have been swayed by the fact they would be paid a large sum of money?

The case was brought on the basis she alleged she didn’t consent, that is what defines rape.

The facts are he was found guilty and then it was quashed. He won the retrial after his defence paid witnesses. Why didn’t they come forward before there was a reward available?

Personally I wouldn’t let the guy anywhere near my family. That’s why my moral compass matters.
Click to expand...


….and Jesus wept....
:sleep:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom