I said on numerous previous threads he should have the right to play again but the football community should be self policing and not employ him. Whether players like it or not young fans look up to them and aspire to be like them and rightly or wrongly that makes them a role model.
What about players that have committed other crimes? See my post above. Where do you draw the line?
Isn't for some of us the issue that Evans has been found guilty but refused to accept it, has shown no remorse and allowed his supporters to act in a way that is close to contempt of court (This is being investigated as we talk). He should have been kept in prison until such time as he successfully appealed, accepted his crime or served his term.
Footballers are role models, whether you like it or not - its not an opinion - boys look up to footballs watch them emulate them, not just playing football but impersonating Rooney swearing at authority.
If he was my bin man and I found out he was a nonce id soon either be smacking the mug up and down the road, or demanding the council remove him, theres no place in society for convicted rapists
So what do you do with them then if "there's no place in society for convicted rapists"? Maybe send them to a penal colony somewhere? Australia?
Maybe though if people think it's fine that nonces and rapists walk amongst us they can move next to you and empty your bins, perhaps sweep the street right out side your houses
Me I'd rather they all just are left in a damp dark piss ridden stench hole near the banks of a river that floods regular in to.the cell, cleaning them from the earth via drowning
But I won't ever get that choice shame seems like a tidy end for a nonce like evans
Whilst nth london addick's view sits on the extreme end of how to deal with rapists, do people not think that rape offences sit on a spectrum?
I am obviously not excusing the actions of any rapists, it is a heinous crime and those who perpetrate it deserve what they get, but would people accept that there is a difference between what Evans did versus someone jumping out of the bushes and violently raping someone?
Whilst nth london addick's view sits on the extreme end of how to deal with rapists, do people not think that rape offences sit on a spectrum?
I am obviously not excusing the actions of any rapists, it is a heinous crime and those who perpetrate it deserve what they get, but would people accept that there is a difference between what Evans did versus someone jumping out of the bushes and violently raping someone?
Legally, there is no difference. The only 'wiggle-room' so to speak is that the judge has discretion in how long a sentence to set. Evans got a much lighter sentence compared to your example of a violent attacker. I imagine Evans did not set out to commit the crime of rape, so to speak, but his actions and his stupidity led to him committing rape in the eyes of the law. His actions cannot be excused because they aren't as bad as another rapist's, and a debate that isn't worth having is whether some rapes are worse than others; rape is rape, that is what the law says and that is what we should practice & teach, that it is not OK to use another person for sex if they are not willing, whether you are coercing them by force or whether they are too drunk/drugged to understand what is going on. I think the whole footballing community (fans, players, PFA, clubs) should not accept Evans back, the message it would send could have a great effect on impressionable minds. If Evans is allowed back into the fold, then I fear the opposite, that some people think it is OK to act the way he did and may even go out and repeat his actions.
He should be allowed to work. Football is his trade. He is not working with vulnerable people, so should be allowed back to playing football. In my view, its because footballers get paid lots of money for a what effectively is a hobby is why there is so much negative press surrounding this.
There is negative press because he is a rapist, nothing to do with what he does or doesn't earn
Would there by such a fuss if he was returning to work as a binman??? I suspect not. Its because he is going back to a job that is well paid.
I can categorically assure you that as a convicted rapist he would not get further than the submission of his application form. I work with binmen and one of two of them were a bit naughty in their younger years but nothing like having a conviction for rape. Even if he were taken on in that job, which he wouldn't, or any other similar low status roles I know damn well his colleagues would create a "fuss" to put it politely. It is about the nature of his crime not how much money he earns.
Whilst nth london addick's view sits on the extreme end of how to deal with rapists, do people not think that rape offences sit on a spectrum?
I am obviously not excusing the actions of any rapists, it is a heinous crime and those who perpetrate it deserve what they get, but would people accept that there is a difference between what Evans did versus someone jumping out of the bushes and violently raping someone?
Whilst nth london addick's view sits on the extreme end of how to deal with rapists, do people not think that rape offences sit on a spectrum?
I am obviously not excusing the actions of any rapists, it is a heinous crime and those who perpetrate it deserve what they get, but would people accept that there is a difference between what Evans did versus someone jumping out of the bushes and violently raping someone?
Maybe though if people think it's fine that nonces and rapists walk amongst us they can move next to you and empty your bins, perhaps sweep the street right out side your houses
Me I'd rather they all just are left in a damp dark piss ridden stench hole near the banks of a river that floods regular in to.the cell, cleaning them from the earth via drowning
But I won't ever get that choice shame seems like a tidy end for a nonce like evans
I agree with most of your sentiments, he is a dirty rapist but you are calling him a nonce as far as I knew he hasn't done anything to or with children, I know raping a young woman is vile in its own right but it doesn't make him a nonce just a scumbag rapist.
Whilst nth london addick's view sits on the extreme end of how to deal with rapists, do people not think that rape offences sit on a spectrum?
I am obviously not excusing the actions of any rapists, it is a heinous crime and those who perpetrate it deserve what they get, but would people accept that there is a difference between what Evans did versus someone jumping out of the bushes and violently raping someone?
Whilst nth london addick's view sits on the extreme end of how to deal with rapists, do people not think that rape offences sit on a spectrum?
I am obviously not excusing the actions of any rapists, it is a heinous crime and those who perpetrate it deserve what they get, but would people accept that there is a difference between what Evans did versus someone jumping out of the bushes and violently raping someone?
I think there are degrees and aggravations in almost every single crime. Rape is no exception.
Burglary for example, I would 100 times rather be burgled when I am on holiday (I was) than when I am sleeping at home with my family.
I would much rather get shot in the back of the head when I least expect it, than beheaded, filmed and posted on the internet.
All rapes are undoubtedly traumatic, and all victims deserve exactly the same level of support, and how traumatised someone is will depend on the person, as well as the circumstances, but to say that some circumstances are worse than others does not belittle rape, or excuse rape, it just states like in other crimes, there are things that can make it even worse.
I think the problem is that when people hear the word rape they go from 0 - emotionally charged and frothing at the mouth in 6 seconds or less, and all objectivity goes out the window.
Whilst nth london addick's view sits on the extreme end of how to deal with rapists, do people not think that rape offences sit on a spectrum?
I am obviously not excusing the actions of any rapists, it is a heinous crime and those who perpetrate it deserve what they get, but would people accept that there is a difference between what Evans did versus someone jumping out of the bushes and violently raping someone?
I think there are degrees and aggravations in almost every single crime. Rape is no exception.
Burglary for example, I would 100 times rather be burgled when I am on holiday (I was) than when I am sleeping at home with my family.
I would much rather get shot in the back of the head when I least expect it, than beheaded, filmed and posted on the internet.
All rapes are undoubtedly traumatic, and all victims deserve exactly the same level of support, and how traumatised someone is will depend on the person, as well as the circumstances, but to say that some circumstances are worse than others does not belittle rape, or excuse rape, it just states like in other crimes, there are things that can make it even worse.
I think the problem is that when people hear the word rape they go from 0 - emotionally charged and frothing at the mouth in 6 seconds or less, and all objectivity goes out the window.
So in what way are we not being objective in the case of Ched Evans?
I don't agree with the whole "he should never be alowed to play again" idea.
One of the hallmarks of a civilized country is that it has a justice system which offers offenders, even those who have committed the most dreadful kind like Evans, the chance of rehabilitation.
However, one key aspect of rehabilitation has to be an understanding that the crime was wrong. Evans is fine to maintain his innocence but whilst he does he cannot be said to have been rehabilitated of the crime that he has committed (that's not an opinion, that's the laws view) and under those circumstances how could he possibly be allowed to play football whilst still serving his sentence ?
Whilst nth london addick's view sits on the extreme end of how to deal with rapists, do people not think that rape offences sit on a spectrum?
I am obviously not excusing the actions of any rapists, it is a heinous crime and those who perpetrate it deserve what they get, but would people accept that there is a difference between what Evans did versus someone jumping out of the bushes and violently raping someone?
Imagine you've just been raped. You go to the police, you take it to court, and at the end of it all someone looks at you and says 'well, that was a low-spectrum rape.' Rape is rape. It can't be carried out by accident, there aren't mitigating factors, and you can't rape in self-defence. I get what you're saying but the only difference between Evans' rape and a violent rape is method of execution. The damage done to the person is the same
Whilst nth london addick's view sits on the extreme end of how to deal with rapists, do people not think that rape offences sit on a spectrum?
I am obviously not excusing the actions of any rapists, it is a heinous crime and those who perpetrate it deserve what they get, but would people accept that there is a difference between what Evans did versus someone jumping out of the bushes and violently raping someone?
I think there are degrees and aggravations in almost every single crime. Rape is no exception.
Burglary for example, I would 100 times rather be burgled when I am on holiday (I was) than when I am sleeping at home with my family.
I would much rather get shot in the back of the head when I least expect it, than beheaded, filmed and posted on the internet.
All rapes are undoubtedly traumatic, and all victims deserve exactly the same level of support, and how traumatised someone is will depend on the person, as well as the circumstances, but to say that some circumstances are worse than others does not belittle rape, or excuse rape, it just states like in other crimes, there are things that can make it even worse.
I think the problem is that when people hear the word rape they go from 0 - emotionally charged and frothing at the mouth in 6 seconds or less, and all objectivity goes out the window.
So in what way are we not being objective in the case of Ched Evans?
Oh not that in particular. Just when someone talks generally, people make out like "all rapes are the sams" the fact that Evans got the sentence he did compared to someone who say grabbed a woman down a dark path and violently assaulted them (which is the judges discretion part) reflects that.
If someone in the public said that twatter goes absolutely insane.
I don't agree with the whole "he should never be alowed to play again" idea.
One of the hallmarks of a civilized country is that it has a justice system which offers offenders, even those who have committed the most dreadful kind like Evans, the chance of rehabilitation.
However, one key aspect of rehabilitation has to be an understanding that the crime was wrong. Evans is fine to maintain his innocence but whilst he does he cannot be said to have been rehabilitated of the crime that he has committed (that's not an opinion, that's the laws view) and under those circumstances how could he possibly be allowed to play football whilst still serving his sentence ?
That's a very fair point. Never thought of it like that.
If Evans did commit the crime, then like all rapists/nonces, if I had it my way he'd be given the death penalty.
People hounding the woman, whether they think she's lying or not, is disgusting. What's wrong with people.
It is interesting however that there is a distinction between murder and manslaughter, even though the result of the crime is the same (and certainly no less distressing for the victim's family/friends).
I find it curious that I would presumably only be charged with manslaughter if I punched somebody in a pub (perhaps following an ill-advised quip about Charlton's lack of goals), and they happened to fall and fatally bang their head.
Although most punches do not end up in death, the mere fact that a reasonable person would acknowledge that it holds some risk of this outcome should surely render my actions murder?
I don't agree with the whole "he should never be alowed to play again" idea.
One of the hallmarks of a civilized country is that it has a justice system which offers offenders, even those who have committed the most dreadful kind like Evans, the chance of rehabilitation.
However, one key aspect of rehabilitation has to be an understanding that the crime was wrong. Evans is fine to maintain his innocence but whilst he does he cannot be said to have been rehabilitated of the crime that he has committed (that's not an opinion, that's the laws view) and under those circumstances how could he possibly be allowed to play football whilst still serving his sentence ?
Suggesting he should somehow be banned from football is extreme for the reasons you outline but the issue is really the right of an employer not to take on a convicted rapist (particularly if said employer values its links with the community, its female supporters, female employees etc.).
As others have noted, even notwithstanding regulatory hurdles rightly put in place to bar certain offenders from certain jobs, there are also rightly 'soft' moral or ethhical hurdles implicitly put in place in many more situations too.
Personally I find it quite reassuring (as hopefully do victims of crime) that punishment effectively continues after what in many cases are quite ludicriously short custodial sentences.
I know rape is rape in the eyes of the law but there are varying degrees of rape in my opinion. I, also, wouldn't classify Ched Evans in the same category of, say, a convicted rapist with multiple offences of preying on women. Multiple offences of manipulating women and, basically, being very cruel. Sick rapists are like that.
I agree that NLA has a very extreme view on rape and he keeps using the term 'nonce' which is extremely derogatory which of course is NLA's intention. I also thought the term nonce was really meant to be used for sex offenders against children and using it really paints a picture of an evil person. I would say that sick rapists as mentioned above would fall into this category which Ched Evans isn't, in my opinion.
NLA - you obviously feel 'very' strongly about the Ched Evans rape case. Your responses always come over to me as far more aggressive than the normal posts that you make on other subjects. Could you explain why you believe the Ched Evans rape is on the same level as the sick rapists who cruelly prey on women. I know 'rape is rape' in the eyes of the law but I'm looking for more than that as an answer. I would like to understand your viewpoint. Thanks.
I don't think there should be any particular directive about who football clubs can and can't employ, I like the current way where it is self policing. To my mind there are two reasons why this case is creating such a fuss. 1. He has not finished his sentence. 2. Rape is an abhorrent crime and nobody wants to see someone richly rewarded, like football players are (generally).
I am surprised at the continued need for this topic of discussion.
The act of rape is rape. There are no degrees of rape.
That there maybe other crimes committed on the victim by way of grievous bodily harm, physical assault and battery, with or without the use or threat of a deadly weapon, kidnap and/or any other range of lesser or greater criminal acts against the person perpetrated alongside the rape are all aggravating factors but the sexual penetration of another person without their specific consent, and the knowledge the person is competent to give their consent to such act is rape.
It is a specific, emotionally laden act of physical abuse with the potential for far reaching consequences for the victim.
Can we be clear no one is preventing Evans from returning to gainful employment.
People are preventing Evans from returning to gainful employment as a professional footballer.
Under the law he is entitled to pursue any occupation he wishes subject to the restrictions applicable to a registered sex offender and the terms of his release on licence. However as I have stated before in trying to resume a career as a professional footballer he, by the very nature of the career, will represent a club and by connection all those who are financially involved with the club, or who support the club and in a broader context the community in which the club operates.
All of those people are entitled to register their views on who is employed to represent them and their interests.
I thought the issues surrounding the prosecution of Evans for his actions on the night/morning in question had been fully debated. It seems some struggle to come to terms with the underlying principles of the case.
It matters not one jot as to what he believed the victim was agreeing to because the police and CPS concluded there was sufficient evidence to suggest the victim was not competent to provide her consent to anything.
Circumstantially if you consider there seemingly had been no prior interaction between Evans and the victim before that night or between Evans and the victim on that night until he lied (his admission) to secure a passkey to gain entry to the hotel room at 4.15 a.m. to involve himself in the existing physical interaction of 2 other people on what possible basis can he argue or present evidence she was competent to provide consent.
He is recorded as departing circa 30 minutes later via the fire escape. Within that brief timeframe how can he realistically argue he had any prior knowledge of, or the time to actually determine, her competence to consent.
That he may have thought (or merely assumed) she was competent is no defence in law. The police and the CPS presented sufficient evidence and witnesses for a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt she was not competent. You may not like it or agree with it and I can understand it may give more than few a good reason to think about their future duty of care to others but that is it.
I could draw a range of analogies concerning people who leave themselves vulnerable though the misuse of one substance or another be it at a party, passed out on public transport or incapable of putting one foot in front of another whilst trying to get home. Such vulnerability does not immediately entitle anyone who happens to be in the vicinity to take advantage of that situation. It is fundamental to common law you do not do harm to others.
Sexual contact with someone without their specific approval AND without the specific knowledge they are competent to provide such consent can seriously harm others. We know this. In the case where one party is under the age of consent the other party can present no legitimate defence he/ she did not know. Ignorance is no defence.
Unwittingly or not Evans planned or otherwise took advantage of a situation for his own purposes. The courts decision in itself should at the very least have given Evans and his advisors pause for thought not only in respect of Evans having made a series of serious errors of judgement but in recognising the considerable harm done to the victim by those same series of serious errors of judgement.
I apologise for repeating myself.
The Telegraph article, in commenting on their approach, positions the thoughts of many so very well.
I know rape is rape in the eyes of the law but there are varying degrees of rape in my opinion. I, also, wouldn't classify Ched Evans in the same category of, say, a convicted rapist with multiple offences of preying on women. Multiple offences of manipulating women and, basically, being very cruel. Sick rapists are like that.
I agree that NLA has a very extreme view on rape and he keeps using the term 'nonce' which is extremely derogatory which of course is NLA's intention. I also thought the term nonce was really meant to be used for sex offenders against children and using it really paints a picture of an evil person. I would say that sick rapists as mentioned above would fall into this category which Ched Evans isn't, in my opinion.
NLA - you obviously feel 'very' strongly about the Ched Evans rape case. Your responses always come over to me as far more aggressive than the normal posts that you make on other subjects. Could you explain why you believe the Ched Evans rape is on the same level as the sick rapists who cruelly prey on women. I know 'rape is rape' in the eyes of the law but I'm looking for more than that as an answer. I would like to understand your viewpoint. Thanks.
For Christ's sake how many more times are we going to have this spurious sliding scales of rape argument?
It is for the judge, who has heard all the mitigation and aggravating evidence to pass sentence not you, me or anyone else to impose our own value judgement on whether the victim is more, or less, of a victim than in other cases. She was subject to non consensual penetrative sex. That should be the focus not some discussion over whether her case is "better or worse" than another rape victim.
The thing that I still find the most puzzling about this whole business is how the girlfriend and her family are still sticking by him. Even if they genuinely believe he is innocent of rape, what he did was still a betrayal of her - there's no denying that. It doesn't seem as if it's about the money, based on reports that daddy is minted and as prepared to shell out hard cash to get him back to work. Weird.
It is interesting however that there is a distinction between murder and manslaughter, even though the result of the crime is the same (and certainly no less distressing for the victim's family/friends).
I find it curious that I would presumably only be charged with manslaughter if I punched somebody in a pub (perhaps following an ill-advised quip about Charlton's lack of goals), and they happened to fall and fatally bang their head.
Although most punches do not end up in death, the mere fact that a reasonable person would acknowledge that it holds some risk of this outcome should surely render my actions murder?
The distinction relates tothe intention at the time of the crime.
It is interesting however that there is a distinction between murder and manslaughter, even though the result of the crime is the same (and certainly no less distressing for the victim's family/friends).
I find it curious that I would presumably only be charged with manslaughter if I punched somebody in a pub (perhaps following an ill-advised quip about Charlton's lack of goals), and they happened to fall and fatally bang their head.
Although most punches do not end up in death, the mere fact that a reasonable person would acknowledge that it holds some risk of this outcome should surely render my actions murder?
In a number of cases you can still be guilty of murder for accidentally killing someone with a punch. There are a number of tests, including the egg shell skull test, but ultimately it goes to whether you reasonably believed the person could be killed by your actions. If you punch someone in the face they may end up with a black eye or they may fall, hit their head on the ground and die. Your intention there can be, and often is, relevant. If you have sex with someone without their consent then the only outcome of your action can be rape. There's no question of intent. That's why there are no degrees.
Comments
Footballers are role models, whether you like it or not - its not an opinion - boys look up to footballs watch them emulate them, not just playing football but impersonating Rooney swearing at authority.
Maybe though if people think it's fine that nonces and rapists walk amongst us they can move next to you and empty your bins, perhaps sweep the street right out side your houses
Me I'd rather they all just are left in a damp dark piss ridden stench hole near the banks of a river that floods regular in to.the cell, cleaning them from the earth via drowning
But I won't ever get that choice shame seems like a tidy end for a nonce like evans
I am obviously not excusing the actions of any rapists, it is a heinous crime and those who perpetrate it deserve what they get, but would people accept that there is a difference between what Evans did versus someone jumping out of the bushes and violently raping someone?
Burglary for example, I would 100 times rather be burgled when I am on holiday (I was) than when I am sleeping at home with my family.
I would much rather get shot in the back of the head when I least expect it, than beheaded, filmed and posted on the internet.
All rapes are undoubtedly traumatic, and all victims deserve exactly the same level of support, and how traumatised someone is will depend on the person, as well as the circumstances, but to say that some circumstances are worse than others does not belittle rape, or excuse rape, it just states like in other crimes, there are things that can make it even worse.
I think the problem is that when people hear the word rape they go from 0 - emotionally charged and frothing at the mouth in 6 seconds or less, and all objectivity goes out the window.
One of the hallmarks of a civilized country is that it has a justice system which offers offenders, even those who have committed the most dreadful kind like Evans, the chance of rehabilitation.
However, one key aspect of rehabilitation has to be an understanding that the crime was wrong. Evans is fine to maintain his innocence but whilst he does he cannot be said to have been rehabilitated of the crime that he has committed (that's not an opinion, that's the laws view) and under those circumstances how could he possibly be allowed to play football whilst still serving his sentence ?
If someone in the public said that twatter goes absolutely insane.
Having said that, I think Evans is scum.
If Evans did commit the crime, then like all rapists/nonces, if I had it my way he'd be given the death penalty.
People hounding the woman, whether they think she's lying or not, is disgusting. What's wrong with people.
I find it curious that I would presumably only be charged with manslaughter if I punched somebody in a pub (perhaps following an ill-advised quip about Charlton's lack of goals), and they happened to fall and fatally bang their head.
Although most punches do not end up in death, the mere fact that a reasonable person would acknowledge that it holds some risk of this outcome should surely render my actions murder?
As others have noted, even notwithstanding regulatory hurdles rightly put in place to bar certain offenders from certain jobs, there are also rightly 'soft' moral or ethhical hurdles implicitly put in place in many more situations too.
Personally I find it quite reassuring (as hopefully do victims of crime) that punishment effectively continues after what in many cases are quite ludicriously short custodial sentences.
The whole load of that lot are scum, your daughter picked well fella with principles like that she deserves evans
Total scum
I agree that NLA has a very extreme view on rape and he keeps using the term 'nonce' which is extremely derogatory which of course is NLA's intention. I also thought the term nonce was really meant to be used for sex offenders against children and using it really paints a picture of an evil person. I would say that sick rapists as mentioned above would fall into this category which Ched Evans isn't, in my opinion.
NLA - you obviously feel 'very' strongly about the Ched Evans rape case. Your responses always come over to me as far more aggressive than the normal posts that you make on other subjects. Could you explain why you believe the Ched Evans rape is on the same level as the sick rapists who cruelly prey on women. I know 'rape is rape' in the eyes of the law but I'm looking for more than that as an answer. I would like to understand your viewpoint. Thanks.
1. He has not finished his sentence.
2. Rape is an abhorrent crime and nobody wants to see someone richly rewarded, like football players are (generally).
The act of rape is rape. There are no degrees of rape.
That there maybe other crimes committed on the victim by way of grievous bodily harm, physical assault and battery, with or without the use or threat of a deadly weapon, kidnap and/or any other range of lesser or greater criminal acts against the person perpetrated alongside the rape are all aggravating factors but the sexual penetration of another person without their specific consent, and the knowledge the person is competent to give their consent to such act is rape.
It is a specific, emotionally laden act of physical abuse with the potential for far reaching consequences for the victim.
Can we be clear no one is preventing Evans from returning to gainful employment.
People are preventing Evans from returning to gainful employment as a professional footballer.
Under the law he is entitled to pursue any occupation he wishes subject to the restrictions applicable to a registered sex offender and the terms of his release on licence. However as I have stated before in trying to resume a career as a professional footballer he, by the very nature of the career, will represent a club and by connection all those who are financially involved with the club, or who support the club and in a broader context the community in which the club operates.
All of those people are entitled to register their views on who is employed to represent them and their interests.
I thought the issues surrounding the prosecution of Evans for his actions on the night/morning in question had been fully debated. It seems some struggle to come to terms with the underlying principles of the case.
It matters not one jot as to what he believed the victim was agreeing to because the police and CPS concluded there was sufficient evidence to suggest the victim was not competent to provide her consent to anything.
Circumstantially if you consider there seemingly had been no prior interaction between Evans and the victim before that night or between Evans and the victim on that night until he lied (his admission) to secure a passkey to gain entry to the hotel room at 4.15 a.m. to involve himself in the existing physical interaction of 2 other people on what possible basis can he argue or present evidence she was competent to provide consent.
He is recorded as departing circa 30 minutes later via the fire escape. Within that brief timeframe how can he realistically argue he had any prior knowledge of, or the time to actually determine, her competence to consent.
That he may have thought (or merely assumed) she was competent is no defence in law. The police and the CPS presented sufficient evidence and witnesses for a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt she was not competent. You may not like it or agree with it and I can understand it may give more than few a good reason to think about their future duty of care to others but that is it.
I could draw a range of analogies concerning people who leave themselves vulnerable though the misuse of one substance or another be it at a party, passed out on public transport or incapable of putting one foot in front of another whilst trying to get home. Such vulnerability does not immediately entitle anyone who happens to be in the vicinity to take advantage of that situation. It is fundamental to common law you do not do harm to others.
Sexual contact with someone without their specific approval AND without the specific knowledge they are competent to provide such consent can seriously harm others. We know this. In the case where one party is under the age of consent the other party can present no legitimate defence he/ she did not know. Ignorance is no defence.
Unwittingly or not Evans planned or otherwise took advantage of a situation for his own purposes. The courts decision in itself should at the very least have given Evans and his advisors pause for thought not only in respect of Evans having made a series of serious errors of judgement but in recognising the considerable harm done to the victim by those same series of serious errors of judgement.
I apologise for repeating myself.
The Telegraph article, in commenting on their approach, positions the thoughts of many so very well.
It is for the judge, who has heard all the mitigation and aggravating evidence to pass sentence not you, me or anyone else to impose our own value judgement on whether the victim is more, or less, of a victim than in other cases. She was subject to non consensual penetrative sex. That should be the focus not some discussion over whether her case is "better or worse" than another rape victim.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/11326603/Ched-Evans-latest-Shame-on-Oldham-for-even-thinking-of-signing-the-striker.html
How do you rape someone by accident?