Ched Evans makes a public statement

There is indeed still a long road to travel but we have improved and as a country we have a generally more enlightened approach than say in the 60's. I would like to think that males like Jimmy Savile would not get away with their foul crimes in our society today. Much remains to be done as recent events in Rotherham have shown and I would also like to see male rape highlighted a lot more than it is. But as a woman I have been very heartened by the responses of many CL'ers.

se9addick said:

stilladdicted said:

There is indeed still a long road to travel but we have improved and as a country we have a generally more enlightened approach than say in the 60's. I would like to think that males like Jimmy Savile would not get away with their foul crimes in our society today. Much remains to be done as recent events in Rotherham have shown and I would also like to see male rape highlighted a lot more than it is. But as a woman I have been very heartened by the responses of many CL'ers.

The conviction rate is still shockingly low - I'm not sure anyone has a workable idea as to how to reflect the prevalence of the offence with a sensible conviction rate.

I'm pretty sure that rape crisis said only 15% of rapes are reported. Of that number only x amount will result in a conviction. Unfortunately I'd expect the conviction rate in comparison to the number of offences committed to be <10%, which is wrong. However, a number of attitudes demonstrated elsewhere, and in a minority here, have shown why this is the case.

The rest of this is not directed at the poster I have quoted but at those who have tried to defend this rapist.

I was so angry last night when I read comments elsewhere such as "he was stitched up" "she's only did it once she realised his reputation" etc. here we have seen statements claiming his crime was not that severe, it was a lesser rape or such rubbish. How is that even a consideration??? Rape is rape, someone forces themselves upon someone else, there isn't consent. That is rape.

Violent or not doesn't come into that. If there is violence then this should be an additional charge, the less violent rape is no less of a rape crime.

These prehistoric, male chauvinistic views are sickening. They are unacceptable. She wasn't asking for it, no one EVER is. She could wear and do what she likes, that doesn't mean she was asking for it. She didn't change her mind in the morning as someone alluded to. She went back with one person and there was reasonable doubt he may have had consent. Reasonable doubt, that doesn't mean he didn't rape her as well as some of the rapists supporters claim, just that there wasn't the evidence to prove he hadn't received consent.

The rapist turned up later, blagged a key and went into the room. She was barely conscious, she can't remember that night, she couldn't give consent but the rapist did the deed anyway. Even his friend was concerned about the state she was in.

These disgusting views need to be taken out of society, maybe you need education, maybe you just need to discover some semblance of humanity. I couldn't care less, the fact that you have tried to defend his actions in anyway show your complete lack of compassion and belittle your intelligence. You should be better than that.

The relatively low conviction rate is of course a concern. I suppose in many rape cases, when there isn't supplementary evidence like witnesses, evidence of force being used, bruising, use of a knife, say, you are left with maybe DNA evidence that sexual activities took place and then it's down to a question of who the jury believes: the victim's allegations or a defendant's assertions to the contrary.
As we all know, for conviction, the jury must be sure beyond all reasonable doubt that an offence has taken place. However the CPS see it differently. They have two tests: the first is evidential sufficiency; the second public interest. (In rape cases the second test is a no-brainer.) Prosecuting counsel will advise on whether, in her/his opinion, there is more than a 50% chance of a successful prosecution. In rape cases, in particular, it may be that this gap between "more likely than not that the prosecution will succeed" and the jury's requirement to be of a view that there is near 100% certainty that a crime was committed is just too wide and that's why there are so many failed prosecutions. I'm not sure there is an answer to that dichotomy. It's clear, that there would be public outrage if the CPS raised the threshold for prosecution of rape cases in isolation.

If anyone is interested here are the CPS guidelines: cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/rape.html

somehow i just dont see myself "googling filming rape" ----thanks for the suggestion though FFS

For those not familiar with normal behaviour of professional footballers staying at hotels, they probably wouldn't understand why Evans' mates see this as a little jape that went wrong. There is no lack of groupies to oblige, hanging around in the hotel lobbies when footballers play away, and most of the time would assume it must be consensual. My nephew was a pro footballer and met up with him at the Chelsea Harbour Hotel once before a game, and any red blooded male would only dream of having those opportunities (consensually).

Doubt if Evans was used to having to ask for consent and probably assumed it was just his turn, another night, another hotel, another drunk slag. Many footballers must be thinking there but for the grace of God....

The "normality" of this behaviour in the footballing world might explain the lack of condemnation and the focus purely on the legalistic rights of an offender to work. If Evans was stopped from playing for his lack of moral standards, where would it end, wouldn't have many players registered with the leagues. Like it or not, I think it's the legal rights that should be applied, or we just sanction hypocrisy.

Fiiish said:

oohaahmortimer said:

How many other intending rapists get their mates to film it , I mean I'm sure they want us much evidence as possible to be available

Missing the point, since the defendants didn't realise what they were doing was actually rape.

Why are you defending a rapist and his accomplices?

IAgree said:

Fiiish said:

oohaahmortimer said:

How many other intending rapists get their mates to film it , I mean I'm sure they want us much evidence as possible to be available

Missing the point, since the defendants didn't realise what they were doing was actually rape.

Why are you defending a rapist and his accomplices?

I don't think he was - I thought he was highlighting the ignorance and recklessness if Evans et al ?

Dippenhall said:

For those not familiar with normal behaviour of professional footballers staying at hotels, they probably wouldn't understand why Evans' mates see this as a little jape that went wrong. There is no lack of groupies to oblige, hanging around in the hotel lobbies when footballers play away, and most of the time would assume it must be consensual. My nephew was a pro footballer and met up with him at the Chelsea Harbour Hotel once before a game, and any red blooded male would only dream of having those opportunities (consensually).

Doubt if Evans was used to having to ask for consent and probably assumed it was just his turn, another night, another hotel, another drunk slag. Many footballers must be thinking there but for the grace of God....

The "normality" of this behaviour in the footballing world might explain the lack of condemnation and the focus purely on the legalistic rights of an offender to work. If Evans was stopped from playing for his lack of moral standards, where would it end, wouldn't have many players registered with the leagues. Like it or not, I think it's the legal rights that should be applied, or we just sanction hypocrisy.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen because occasional news stories over the years paint that picture but your disturbing description is not something I recognise.

I often stay in hotels for away matches and sometimes, by chance, I end up staying in the same hotel as Charlton's players. My observation is that they are generally on a tight leash, don't drink, and are much quieter and better behaved than I have been while attending various courses, seminars, etc. They are polite, friendly and approachable. They are also under the watchful eye of the manager and coaches and sometimes a director or two. They are also away straight back home after the match having checked out of the hotel at lunchtime. The only time I have seen a sports team cause issues in a hotel was many years ago in Cardiff when the New Zealand All Blacks got a bit lively - let's face it no one was going to tell them to shut it were they? (Although I did recently have an issue with Plymouth Albion RFC who were in Rotherham on the same day as us - in that the bastards ate all the bacon at breakfast).

One story going round involved a player who later joined Charlton, but he was young and single and nothing illegal. Accept it may just depend on the club culture.

Really good feature on This Week with Charlie Webster and Alan Johnson both saying he has no place in the game. would think you can still catch this on Iplayer.

A disgrace.

JiMMy 85 said:

Back in training at United. PFA asked for United to let him train there!

Thanks Colin :-)