Ched Evans

cunts
bastards
fuckoffmate
sexism

#1

Classic example of wealth, privilege and sheer bloody minded sexism steamrollering justice imho
Hope he never plays again


#2

Fucking awful. Judge allowed previous sexual partner’s of the defendant to testify for some fucking inexplicable reason.

Any time you start to think we might be starting to make societal progress on a thing you’re given a stark fucking reminder that we really, really aren’t.


#3

‘The appeal was allowed after judges gave the go-ahead for two former sexual partners of the alleged victim to give explicit evidence in court about her sex life.’

What the fuck does that have to do with anything you arseholes


#4

Can’t wait to hear football fans’ opinions about this.

edit: got the stupid reply system wrong sorry


#5

I’m sure MRAs and assorted arseholes across the internet won’t be bloody insufferable about this


#6

Not guilty of rape
Guilty of being a fucking scumbag


#7

FFS

So fucking disappointed in this. Fuck off, everyone.


#8

from what i read about it earlier this week i think they were claiming that she said specific phrases to the previous partners during sex and also to him

i presume they’re trying to argue that the use of the same language implied consent?

grim either way


#9

defo playing devils advocate here - but do you not think this is in any way relevant?

just opening up a discussion, btw. please don’t leap on me


#10

‘In court, Evans admitted he lied to get the key for the hotel room and did not speak to her before, during or after sex. He left via a fire exit. It also emerged that Evans’ younger brother and another man were trying to film what was happening from outside the room.’

What a gross scumbag


#11

I’m not sure what you’re saying exactly but he almost certainly raped her


#12

I don’t understand how that previous sexual partner stuff can be allowed. How is that justified?

So many vile factors in this case.


#13

Even if people do accept the verdict at face value (and as mentioned already there are a lot of reasons why they shouldn’t) I hope everyone remembers what an absolute lowlife this bloke is. People have been eager to forget that he was cheating on his girlfriend with a girl who was too drunk to consent, who he proceeded to hound mercilessly with the help of his girlfriend’s family money after the initial conviction. He may not be considered a criminal any more but that doesn’t stop him from being complete scum.


#14

Absolutely not relevant in any way to the judicial process of this specific case. Not in the slightest, not sure if there’s precedent for it in less high-profile cases or not but it’s fucking dangerous.


#15

Nah. No matter what she did previously should ever have any affect on what happened that night.


#16

My understanding of the quashing of his conviction, and the subsequent retrial, is that substantial new evidence has to come to light in order for this to happen.

Do we have any sense of what this evidence is yet?


#17

Three of my colleagues now agreeing that she should go to prison for lying now :((((((((((


#18

Her sexual history has no bearing on the question. Which is whether or not she was too drunk to consent.
Also, the time since the original trial, publicity and status of the defendant give the potential for collusion between the witness and the defendant.
Also, there’s a massive historic problem with women not reporting sexual assaults for fear they will be effectively put on trial for their lifestyle, this verdict and acceptance of evidence won’t help that at all.


#19

Not at all, it creates a false impression of the victim that ultimately coloured the jury’s impression of her. Just because she’s consented to rough sex in the past doesn’t mean she automatically consented this time. It’s the same reason that jurys aren’t told about defendant’s criminal histories during the trial.


#20

Jury obviously says otherwise s_h.
Agree with you though