Oh wow what a good man that makes him. Wait two days to hand yourself in after killing someone and then when you do, deny the charges against you. Great role model he is.
These players showed remorse for what they did and accepted their guilty verdicts. Evans hasn't and won't. That's the difference. This really doesn't need to be repeated as many times as it has.
You're sadly very ignorant of the cases in hand. Marlon King sexually and physically assaulted a woman in a nightclub in front of several witnesses. He refused to plead guilty however and forced her to go through the trauma of a trial.
The ITN link you gave identifies "twitter trolls" as the abusers. DuckSeason stated that it was those who run Ched Evans' official website who were responsible and are abusing the victim on that site.
Can you provide a link that identifies these as one and the same?
I can't comment on that, the info I posted is from the BBC website and indirectly ITN.
So you can kill people and return to football as long as you accept guilt? That is an acceptable role model?
Where did I say they were acceptable role models?
I don't understand your position - you're not happy about murderers returning to football, but you're happy about a convicted rapist doing the same? Need some clarification here.
I don't understand your position - you're not happy about murderers returning to football, but you're happy about a convicted rapist doing the same? Need some clarification here.
My position has been very clear. There needs to be a clear position from the FA. If it is ok for convicted killers, fraudsters, people who have underage sex or handle stolen goods to return to football, why is the case of Evans any different.
As single cases, I have no objection to Hughes or McCormick or King returning to football. When you allow them to but not Evans, that is what I disagree with. The hypocrisy.
That is my very clear position. Hope that has been clarified.
So it didn't actually address the question I asked.
I was just trying to be helpful. My post was primarily in reply to the general theme of the post I quoted (victim harrassment), so feel free to ignore it if it fails to answer your specific question.
EDIT
Ah I see Duckseason has explained it now. Excellent.
So it didn't actually address the question I asked.
The website hosts CCTV footage of the victim and other material in attempt to smear her, encouraging supporters to "judge for yourself" (while failing to realise that a court judge already did so, along with the rest of the evidence the site conveniently doesn't have or mention). IIRC it also offers a monetary reward for anyone who comes forward with information which supports Evans' defence - most of which involves the victim's private life. The site is run by Evan's girlfriend and funded by her dad.
The nature of the website and the suffering it has helped inflict upon the victim makes it utterly impossible for me to offer Evans any kind of sympathy or defence. It is utterly amazing that this site has been up for so long given that it is basically breaking contempt of court laws.
My position has been very clear. There needs to be a clear position from the FA. If it is ok for convicted killers, fraudsters, people who have underage sex or handle stolen goods to return to football, why is the case of Evans any different.
As single cases, I have no objection to Hughes or McCormick or King returning to football. When you allow them to but not Evans, that is what I disagree with.
That is my very clear position. Hope that has been clarified.
The FA aren't stopping Evans from signing for a club. As you probably already know, he is about to sign for Oldham. It is the public and club sponsors voicing their concerns which would prevent a club from signing him. Ultimately the decision rests with the club no matter what the public think, but they are entitled to express concern and the club are responsible for managing any such pressure.
....................................................................................
A lot of people in here are forgetting that the victim still can't get a moment's piece because Evans' supporters, especially the ones running his official website, are perpetrating a continuous harrassment campaign against her, revealing her identity (which is in breach of contempt of court laws) and threatening/abusing her because they refuse to accept a guilty verdict. That's the real lynch mob in all of this.
only 9 arrests back in 2012, and it seems it was some moronic TV company that revealed her identity........the Police seem to have let the poor lass down by not clamping down on the swines who are continuing the:
"perpetrating a continuous harrassment campaign against her"
"threatening/abusing her".
The FA aren't stopping Evans from signing for a club. As you probably already know, he is about to sign for Oldham. It is the public and club sponsors voicing their concerns which would prevent a club from signing him. Ultimately the decision rests with the club no matter what the public think, but they are entitled to express concern and the club are responsible for managing any such pressure.
The hypocrisy is still what I disagree with. There was nothing on this level for two convicted killers (one who killed two children) and one of the reasons people are opposed to Evans is "role model". I just don't agree with that, not saying I think the three names I've mentioned shouldn't be in football but Evans should.
You're sadly very ignorant of the cases in hand. Marlon King sexually and physically assaulted a woman in a nightclub in front of several witnesses. He refused to plead guilty however and forced her to go through the trauma of a trial.
You say "cases" and then only mention one. Fine , by r why am I wrong about the others?
The website hosts CCTV footage of the victim and other material in attempt to smear her, encouraging supporters to "judge for yourself" (while failing to realise that a court judge already did so, along with the rest of the evidence the site conveniently doesn't have or mention). IIRC it also offers a monetary reward for anyone who comes forward with information which supports Evans' defence - most of which involves the victim's private life. The site is run by Evan's girlfriend and funded by her dad.
The website exists to support Ched Evans' claim to innocence. They claim to show the CCTV footage (with the victim's face obliterated) because they are making a case that she was incapably drunk. I have no opinion on this. He was found guilty of rape. My interest in all this is because I believe anybody who has been found guilty of a crime is free to pursue gainful employment when they have served any custodial sentence imposed.
The nature of the website and the suffering it has helped inflict upon the victim makes it utterly impossible for me to offer Evans any kind of sympathy or defence.
People who have been found guilty of a crime but who maintain their innocence are free to use the internet to make their case. You may not agree with this, but it is their right in our justice system
The hypocrisy is still what I disagree with. There was nothing on this level for two convicted killers (one who killed two children) and one of the reasons people are opposed to Evans is "role model". I just don't agree with that, not saying I think the three names I've mentioned shouldn't be in football but Evans should.
The role model bit really boggles the mind. If nothing else because as a Premier League player at the timeLee Hughes is a higher profile player than Evans ever was.
The website has absolutely no place to do so, and especially not by offering a monetary reward. As I already said, a court of law has considered the same CCTV evidence the site presents in addition to all the other evidence the website does not have or ignores, and it reached a guilty verdict.
Because of what this site is doing and encouraging, the victim has to keep changing her identity because her name keeps getting revealed, and she has basically gone into hiding. She couldn't even see her family at Christmas and her dad claims he hasn't seen her for a year. The website is pursuing a reckless, borderline illegal campaign to try and smear the victim in a manner which is basically contempt of court. It offers absolutely nothing which the court didn't already consider, and I won't be surprised if it is ordered to be taken down following the Attorney General's office's probe into the site.
If you think it isn't the place of random people on the internet to judge Evans, then I'm sure you'll agree that it isn't this website's place to encourage people to judge the victim as a liar and a criminal either.
I think it's morally right in society for convicted criminals to be given a clean slate once they've served their time and a chance of re-starting their career again - I think it's a hallmark of a progressive, civilised society.
All this arbitrary moving of goalposts to try and manufacture a view that Evans shouldn't return to football (while still trying to cling on to the above general position) is pretty poor in my opinion. We can't have it both ways and pick and choose when to apply that opinion.
Doesn't matter whether it's on the football pitch or working in the local Asda. He has every right to continue playing professional football and no football club is doing anything wrong hiring him.
The website has absolutely no place to do so, and especially not by offering a monetary reward. As I already said, a court of law has considered the same CCTV evidence the site presents in addition to all the other evidence the website does not have or ignores, and it reached a guilty verdict.
Because of what this site is doing and encouraging, the victim has to keep changing her identity because her name keeps getting revealed, and she has basically gone into hiding. She couldn't even see her family at Christmas and her dad claims he hasn't seen her for a year. The website is pursuing a reckless, borderline illegal campaign to try and smear the victim in a manner which is basically contempt of court. It offers absolutely nothing which the court didn't already consider, and I won't be surprised if it is ordered to be taken down following the Attorney General's office's probe into the site.
I don't think it's illegal for a convict to try and clear his name. They previously had some unused witness statements on there which presumably they were made to take down, unless they are being used as part of his appeal.
I don't think it's illegal for a convict to try and clear his name. They previously had some unused witness statements on there which presumably they were made to take down, unless they are being used as part of his appeal.
I remember Sion Jenkins had a page up until he was released
The website has absolutely no place to do so, and especially not by offering a monetary reward. As I already said, a court of law has considered the same CCTV evidence the site presents in addition to all the other evidence the website does not have or ignores, and it reached a guilty verdict.
There are loads of websites out there run on behalf of people who have been convicted of crimes but protest their innocence, eg Jeremy Bamber. In all these cases a court will have considered the evidence and reached a guilty verdict. Many of them offer monetary rewards for information. If you think this should not be allowed you need to petition the MoJ. The website for Ched Evans isn't doing anything others aren't doing.
Because of what this site is doing and encouraging, the victim has to keep changing her identity because her name keeps getting revealed, and she has basically gone into hiding. She couldn't even see her family at Christmas and her dad claims he hasn't seen her for a year. The website is pursuing a reckless, borderline illegal campaign to try and smear the victim in a manner which is basically contempt of court. It offers absolutely nothing which the court didn't already consider, and I won't be surprised if it is ordered to be taken down following the Attorney General's office's probe into the site.
If it is contempt of court, then I presume action will be taken against those who run the site.
If you think it isn't the place of random people on the internet to judge Evans, then I'm sure you'll agree that it isn't this website's place to encourage people to judge the victim as a liar and a criminal either.
In what way is the site encouraging people to judge the victim a liar and a criminal? My understanding is that she had no memory of the entire event so presumably has not given an account of her state at the time the events took place.
There is no law against people publicly voicing their concerns that a football club would want to employ a convicted rapist. He is perfectly entitled to return to his career as a footballer, and a football club is perfectly entitled to sign him, but people have every right to speak up and voice their opinion, especially concerned supporters of said club who may have reservations about having a convicted rapist representing their team. People are hardly trying to get the rope and pitchforks on him.
A lot of people in here are forgetting that the victim still can't get a moment's piece because Evans' supporters, especially the ones running his official website, are perpetrating a continuous harrassment campaign against her, revealing her identity (which is in breach of contempt of court laws) and threatening/abusing her because they refuse to accept a guilty verdict. That's the real lynch mob in all of this.
Is it a recorded fact that the chedevans website has revealed the victims identity, or just a rumour? Because that would be serious if proved.
The website for Ched Evans isn't doing anything others aren't doing.
Have these other websites had to remove things like Ched Evans has for example the video a the hotel that they did not have permission to have on their website. Do other websites have material like the hacked twitter messages, or I should say alleged twitter messages of the victim, months after the event to paint the victim in a bad light.
In what way is the site encouraging people to judge the victim a liar and a criminal?
Ched Evans website alledging she sent and received facebook messages the night of the rape and that she deleted them and that she claims ‘she was just tidying up her Facebook’. The "AN APPEAL FOR INFORMATION We have considered from the outset that the complainant had messaged friends at around the time of the incident with information which would have been useful for the defence."
The alleged "when I win big" twitter messages that cast her in a bad light, looking for a payout.
The "Too drunk to consent, too drunk to remember?" judge for yourself video
The claim that at trial "Expert evidence proved that the complainant was lying on oath on the stand about her cocaine consumption"
The claimed "Key and Undisputed Facts" that contains the accused version of events.
In the FAQ "The Jury must have been privy to further information that is not disclosed on this website? A. Absolutely not"
Is it a recorded fact that the chedevans website has revealed the victims identity, or just a rumour? Because that would be serious if proved.
No, her identity was revealed by many people on twitter just after the verdict and then again when her account was hacked and the 'when I win big' tweets were discovered.
Comments
Oh wow what a good man that makes him. Wait two days to hand yourself in after killing someone and then when you do, deny the charges against you. Great role model he is.
Thanks for this. £624.00 each seems an odd amount. Are those tweets real I wonder?
You're sadly very ignorant of the cases in hand. Marlon King sexually and physically assaulted a woman in a nightclub in front of several witnesses. He refused to plead guilty however and forced her to go through the trauma of a trial.
when it was too late for a breath test.
I can't comment on that, the info I posted is from the BBC website and indirectly ITN.
Where did I say they were acceptable role models?
I don't understand your position - you're not happy about murderers returning to football, but you're happy about a convicted rapist doing the same? Need some clarification here.
So it didn't actually address the question I asked.
My position has been very clear. There needs to be a clear position from the FA. If it is ok for convicted killers, fraudsters, people who have underage sex or handle stolen goods to return to football, why is the case of Evans any different.
As single cases, I have no objection to Hughes or McCormick or King returning to football. When you allow them to but not Evans, that is what I disagree with. The hypocrisy.
That is my very clear position. Hope that has been clarified.
EDIT
Ah I see Duckseason has explained it now. Excellent.
The website hosts CCTV footage of the victim and other material in attempt to smear her, encouraging supporters to "judge for yourself" (while failing to realise that a court judge already did so, along with the rest of the evidence the site conveniently doesn't have or mention). IIRC it also offers a monetary reward for anyone who comes forward with information which supports Evans' defence - most of which involves the victim's private life. The site is run by Evan's girlfriend and funded by her dad.
The nature of the website and the suffering it has helped inflict upon the victim makes it utterly impossible for me to offer Evans any kind of sympathy or defence. It is utterly amazing that this site has been up for so long given that it is basically breaking contempt of court laws.
The FA aren't stopping Evans from signing for a club. As you probably already know, he is about to sign for Oldham. It is the public and club sponsors voicing their concerns which would prevent a club from signing him. Ultimately the decision rests with the club no matter what the public think, but they are entitled to express concern and the club are responsible for managing any such pressure.
only 9 arrests back in 2012, and it seems it was some moronic TV company that revealed her identity........the Police seem to have let the poor lass down by not clamping down on the swines who are continuing the:
"perpetrating a continuous harrassment campaign against her"
"threatening/abusing her".
Don't seem right
The hypocrisy is still what I disagree with. There was nothing on this level for two convicted killers (one who killed two children) and one of the reasons people are opposed to Evans is "role model". I just don't agree with that, not saying I think the three names I've mentioned shouldn't be in football but Evans should.
You say "cases" and then only mention one. Fine , by r why am I wrong about the others?
The website exists to support Ched Evans' claim to innocence. They claim to show the CCTV footage (with the victim's face obliterated) because they are making a case that she was incapably drunk. I have no opinion on this. He was found guilty of rape. My interest in all this is because I believe anybody who has been found guilty of a crime is free to pursue gainful employment when they have served any custodial sentence imposed.
Here's the link to the page which offers a reward for information. I would encourage anybody, supporter or opponent, to judge for themselves..
People who have been found guilty of a crime but who maintain their innocence are free to use the internet to make their case. You may not agree with this, but it is their right in our justice system
The role model bit really boggles the mind. If nothing else because as a Premier League player at the timeLee Hughes is a higher profile player than Evans ever was.
The website has absolutely no place to do so, and especially not by offering a monetary reward. As I already said, a court of law has considered the same CCTV evidence the site presents in addition to all the other evidence the website does not have or ignores, and it reached a guilty verdict.
Because of what this site is doing and encouraging, the victim has to keep changing her identity because her name keeps getting revealed, and she has basically gone into hiding. She couldn't even see her family at Christmas and her dad claims he hasn't seen her for a year. The website is pursuing a reckless, borderline illegal campaign to try and smear the victim in a manner which is basically contempt of court. It offers absolutely nothing which the court didn't already consider, and I won't be surprised if it is ordered to be taken down following the Attorney General's office's probe into the site.
If you think it isn't the place of random people on the internet to judge Evans, then I'm sure you'll agree that it isn't this website's place to encourage people to judge the victim as a liar and a criminal either.
All this arbitrary moving of goalposts to try and manufacture a view that Evans shouldn't return to football (while still trying to cling on to the above general position) is pretty poor in my opinion. We can't have it both ways and pick and choose when to apply that opinion.
Doesn't matter whether it's on the football pitch or working in the local Asda. He has every right to continue playing professional football and no football club is doing anything wrong hiring him.
I don't think it's illegal for a convict to try and clear his name. They previously had some unused witness statements on there which presumably they were made to take down, unless they are being used as part of his appeal.
I remember Sion Jenkins had a page up until he was released
There are loads of websites out there run on behalf of people who have been convicted of crimes but protest their innocence, eg Jeremy Bamber. In all these cases a court will have considered the evidence and reached a guilty verdict. Many of them offer monetary rewards for information. If you think this should not be allowed you need to petition the MoJ. The website for Ched Evans isn't doing anything others aren't doing.
If it is contempt of court, then I presume action will be taken against those who run the site.
In what way is the site encouraging people to judge the victim a liar and a criminal? My understanding is that she had no memory of the entire event so presumably has not given an account of her state at the time the events took place.
Is it a recorded fact that the chedevans website has revealed the victims identity, or just a rumour? Because that would be serious if proved.
The attorney general office is deciding what if any action to take about the website.
Ched Evans website alledging she sent and received facebook messages the night of the rape and that she deleted them and that she claims ‘she was just tidying up her Facebook’. The "AN APPEAL FOR INFORMATION We have considered from the outset that the complainant had messaged friends at around the time of the incident with information which would have been useful for the defence."
The alleged "when I win big" twitter messages that cast her in a bad light, looking for a payout.
The "Too drunk to consent, too drunk to remember?" judge for yourself video
The claim that at trial "Expert evidence proved that the complainant was lying on oath on the stand about her cocaine consumption"
The claimed "Key and Undisputed Facts" that contains the accused version of events.
In the FAQ "The Jury must have been privy to further information that is not disclosed on this website? A. Absolutely not"
No, her identity was revealed by many people on twitter just after the verdict and then again when her account was hacked and the 'when I win big' tweets were discovered.