by From Despair To Where? » 16 Oct 2014 21:01
16 Oct 2014 21:01There's a lot of things I don't agree with you but you're spot on here.RoyalBlue wrote:Professional footballers are a bit different from 'the ordinary man in the street' and they get extremely well rewarded for the 'burden' of being treated differently.
They have very high public profiles and are seen by many, particularly youngsters, as role models. So Mr Evans, through his conduct and apparent lack of public remorse despite being found guilty, has IMO forfeited his right to return to his highly paid profession. However, having done his time he is perfectly entitled to take up an ordinary job elsewhere out of the public limelight.
As stated by Wiggso, the point is she was raped, she did not 'have sex'. To be found guilty it has to be found that the accused DID NOT have reasonable cause to believe consent had been given. The jury found that he did not have reasonable cause to believe consent was given, so he was found guilty. I believe this may be one of the things Mr Assange came unstuck on, think he was trying to have unprotected sex with a woman who was asleep. Same rule applies. She DID NOT give her consent. Not exactly sure how someone can think it's ok to presume being flat out drunk is a consent for sex?Royalwaster
Not sure it's right to say that the psychological damages is the same .... being assaulted in public and fearing for my life I'd say would result in more psychological damage to most people, than having sex with someone when blind-drunk .... (and not even being able to remember that it happened - in this case, it only came out that CE had had sex with the girl based on his own admission I think).
What if your parents are footballers?sandman wrote:Parents are role models not footballers.
Ched Evans could potentially be a "forced father"Pepe the Horseman wrote:What if your parents are footballers?sandman wrote:Parents are role models not footballers.
I dunno, I never played microelectroics with my friends and pretended to be my Dad. But i did get into a fight once with the kid from down the road because we both wanted to "be" Jimmy Quinn.sandman wrote:Parents are role models not footballers.
^this.RoyalBlue wrote:Professional footballers are a bit different from 'the ordinary man in the street' and they get extremely well rewarded for the 'burden' of being treated differently.
They have very high public profiles and are seen by many, particularly youngsters, as role models. So Mr Evans, through his conduct and apparent lack of public remorse despite being found guilty, has IMO forfeited his right to return to his highly paid profession. However, having done his time he is perfectly entitled to take up an ordinary job elsewhere out of the public limelight.
Given reported rapes rose by 29% and the horrifying numbers of women who experience rape or sexual assault at some point in their lives, it hardly acts to underline its wrong even if it doesn't actively persuade someone it's ok.strap wrote:Anyone who seriously thinks footballers are role models does need to wake up and smell the coffee. As with "reality" tv "stars", x-factor contestants et al, they are nothing more than a bunch of overpaid prima donnas or wannabees. I suppose the challenge today is to make the impressionable understand this fact.
Quite how many young kids will look at Evans' crime and think it is "cool", "acceptable" or will want to try to copy it, is a moot point. I suspect, (hope?), very very very few - or is it actually me being naive??
Strikes me as one of those cases where if you tried it 10 different times with ten different juries, you might not necessarily get ten consistent outcomes.Ian Royal wrote:Given he was convicted, yes, legally we can and he is.
Can we be absolutely certain? Well if you want to get into a debate about whether we can ever know anything for certain, no. But we know that the vast majority of 12 people who heard all the evidence thought he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Not only that but I'm not aware there was any appeal attempts, which tends to rule out the idea there was some dodgy evidence or miscarriage of justice. So I have to say its a rather bizarre question and one I, personally, find rather disturbing. And your answer even more so.
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 215 guests