[WalterBlack]

This is a very controversial case in UK.

TL DR: Professional soccer player Ched Evans and another man banged a girl they picked up drunk. Girl wakes up next morning and claims she was raped. Ched Evans goes to jail for rape, and the other guy was found innocent. Ched is out of jail now, and wants to get back into soccer. People are protesting against him playing.

This is Ched with his girlfriend

Ched Evans: Sorry, but all rapes are not the same

I was impressed by the article by Allison Pearson about it, she seems very realistic about the situation.

Quote:

Take the case of footballer Ched Evans, 25, who has been allowed to train with Sheffield United after serving two and a half years in jail for rape. On one side are people who say that Evans, who maintains the sex was “consensual”, has served his time and should be allowed to work. On the other are 157,000 people who have signed a petition urging Sheffield United not to take the player back. TV presenter Charlie Webster resigned yesterday as patron of the club. “I don’t believe a convicted rapist should go back into the community to represent the community,” she said.

Quote:

I’ve spent two grim days reading about everything the former Welsh international did in a hotel in Rhyl in 2011. I have come to three conclusions. The first is that the verdict of the jury was inconsistent and quite possibly unsafe. The second is that the football pitches of England would be half-empty this Saturday afternoon if you removed every player who has done what Evans did. (And so would many of the clubs and pubs.)

The third conclusion is probably the most troubling. We live in an era where relationships among the young have changed beyond recognition. Casual hook-ups and the exchange of sexual favours are the norm. Even “nice” girls allow themselves to be used like inflatable dolls. (If confident enough, they can use men like playthings in return.) [b]In such a free-for-all, what is meant by “consensual sex” becomes more and more blurred.

Sensitive readers should look away now. Footballer Clayton McDonald, a friend of Ched Evans, picked up a 19-year-old girl who was drunk at 4am, and went back to a hotel room with her. McDonald texted Evans: “I’ve got a bird.” McDonald and the girl then had sex. Evans turned up, and the court was told that the girl asked him to perform oral sex on her, which he did. Evans then had sex with the girl, whom he claimed was enjoying herself. A hotel porter said there was no sound of distress or cause for alarm. A few of the footballers’ charming mates showed up and filmed through a window. The next morning, Evans departed via an emergency exit. The 19-year-old awoke to find she was naked, with, she says, no memory of what had happened to her. That evening, she reported McDonald and Evans to the police.

It goes without saying that both footballers are sleazy opportunists, not easily mistaken for Fitzwilliam Darcy. At best, they displayed an appalling lack of judgment and treated the 19-year-old with contempt. But were they rapists? The jury at Caernarfon Crown Court decided that McDonald was not, but Evans was. Was she sober and consenting when McDonald was having sex with her, but drunk and not consenting when Evans did? A witness for the defence testified that the young woman would have had slurred speech, but he would not have expected her to suffer any memory loss. After the attack, the girl is alleged to have sent tweets boasting of “when I win big”.

The TV presenter Charlie Webster is full of shit. She bumped into the convicted rapist Mike Tyson and wanted to take a photo with him but was too scared to ask

Purely for information purposes, here's a photo of her:



I personally think Evans should never have gone to prison in the first place!

[samsamsam]

WB with written consent.

[DarkTriad]

Never be the last guy in a gang bang.

[AntiTrace]

thats why I always take pictures of threesomes, or anything else that has a high chance of buyers remorse.

It's hard to argue you got raped as you have your pic taken looking up at a dude smiling with his cock in your hand, while another dude is behind you.

It's even easier just to threaten to drop the charges otherwise I'd release all the pics. <---- theory, I've never ran into that situation.

I've had a false rape charge against me once. Pictures and screenshots of text messages made her leave me the fuck alone.

also, that chick is a smokeshow.

[Seamus]

I've got to stop clicking on these links and reading these stories.

They just fill me with rage.

At least he's still young, so hopefully he can still make enough Fuck You money to put this behind him.

This guy wasn't so lucky

[bojangles]

Yep there's a lot of arguing over this case as many think hes innocent in the UK

[Captain Gh]

Damn even as a celebrity these hoes can still get you!! This guy doesn't need to take pussy from anyone just look at him. B4 this man could have just bounced and played soccer in another country quietly, but now with social media he'll get harassed no matter where he plays. These hoes can really destroy us to the core and nobody's exempt. Damn!

[britchard]

ThIs case has always been murky. They were as drunk as each other, and the woman didn't even press charges until someone nudged her in the 'right' direction (probably also the mention of compensation money)

[Duke Castile]

Relevant; yesterday I went to this local store that sells phones, I've been going here for years now. Its owned by an Asian lady and she usually has 2 or 3 cute asian or hispanic girls working.

I always flirt with them but this time there was a Vietnamese girl with blonde hair, blue contacts, and little shorts that displayed a killer ass.

We started talking and flirting and she pulled out her "business card" that had txt speak on it and wrote her mobile number down saying "well I trust you".

I called her phone an hour later and she was floored that I actually called instead of texting.

This is going to be fun I thought.

She started texting me for the rest of the night sending me her "modeling" photos, telling me she speaks 5 languages, all stuff qualifying herself.

I had dinner plans so I dropped the name of the restaurant as a "dhv" or whatever and she started saying how hungry she was.

This place is very expensive and theres no way I was going to buy her dinner there so I waited until we were about done to say "well if you were so hungry you should have come with me!"

Then she wrote me saying "youre just now inviting me?!?!?"

I said to come anyway.

This is at the new casino SLS which is pretty decent, my first time in the place.

She shows up 20 mins later and I've already had time to speak to the front desk girl and work my magic there to get a room for much less should the need arise (i'm staying with a girl at her place right now so couldnt bounce her back).

I'd be able to stay out until around 2am before the girl at home might get suspicious.

This girl shows up and its chaos.

Shes crying one second, talking about how shes been offered 750k salaries in Dubai, amd has a boyfriend.

This chick is smoking but so many red flags.

I opt to leave and she gives me two lingering hugs.

The whole time I was thinking "this is the type of girl that makes a false rape allegation".

The combination of her unstable emotions and my having yo ditch her right after the bang made me very wary.

[WalterBlack]

A Radio host got into shit for speaking the truth:

Quote:

Nick Conrad, a talk show host on BBC Radio Norfolk, made the comments in a live debate about the former Sheffield United striker, who has provoked an outcry after returning to train with the club.

Conrad said: “I think women need to be more aware of a man’s sexual desire; that when you’re in that position that you are about to engage in sexual activity there’s a huge amount of energy in the male body, there’s a huge amount of will and intent, and it’s very difficult for many men to say no when they are whipped up into a bit of a storm.

“And it’s the old adage about if you yank a dog’s tale then don’t be surprised when it bites you.

“Or you can’t keep snakes in the garden and think they’ll only bite your neighbours.”

He went on to suggest feminists had “hijacked” or “jumped on” the debate and appear to be “anti-men”.
Ched Evans.

“The onus has to be on the men and the men have to be condemned if a woman says no and they persist then that’s absolutely abhorrent,” he added.

“But they then [feminists], in their fury against men and masculinity, they actually forget to stop and say if you tease, if you jump into bed naked with a man. if you give him all the signals, and then he acts upon them, then you are partially responsible.”

He concluded his comments saying: “What I’m trying to say is that women also have to understand that when a man’s given certain signals, he’ll wish to act upon them and if you don’t wish to give out the wrong signals, it’s best probably to keep your knickers on and not get into bed with him. Does that make sense?”

[jariel]

Re: The Radio Host



Oh ladies, be careful, God's mistake known as the male is loose on Earth, and he's just chomping at the bit for some pussy, the slightest prospect, the casual thought of your disease-infested, soul-sucking, eighteen-year trapping, lube-needing shallow vaginal cavity whips him into a delusional frenzy.

He just can't be stopped, won't be stopped like Bad Boy in the late 90's.

Never you mind that there's no scarcity issue on hoes, skeezers, skanks, slutbags, slags, cumholes, and cueros that are absolutely dying for their next opportunity to do toe-touches while they take enough dick to rearrange their endocrine systems, he must have your pussy, as wack as it more likely than not is, not now, but:

[Veloce]

(11-12-2014 08:21 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  

McDonald and the girl then had sex[/b]. Evans turned up, and the court was told that the girl asked him to perform oral sex on her, which he did.

He went down on her after his buddy fucked her!

[AneroidOcean]

(11-19-2014 05:12 PM)Veloce Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 08:21 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  

McDonald and the girl then had sex[/b]. Evans turned up, and the court was told that the girl asked him to perform oral sex on her, which he did.

He went down on her after his buddy fucked her!

THIS. I'm not going to say he was gay but I really don't understand it.

Also, I REALLY don't understand how he got convicted of rape when she admitted that she had him go down on her. Just, wow.

[tylerdurden1993]

Sheffield United would be stupid not to have him back if he's managed to keep his fitness etc. He'll be unplayable in league 1 (3rd tier of English football), actually i'm kind of hoping they don't want him back so my club Peterborough united (who are in the same league) can snap him up and we can get our promotion push back on track.

About the case how the hell did the other guy not get convicted, surely it would make logical sense for either both of them to get convicted or both of them to get acquitted, I don't understand how they came to the conclusion that only one of them "raped her" when they both fucked her on the same night.

Also I read an article when a reporter went back to Rhyl his home town where's he's a hero and most of the people there think he's innocent and absolutely despise the "victim" as they think she lied about it. It's definitely an interesting case

[whoishe]

It's almost 2 months after last post here, so a few updates:

- Due to outside pressure a few clubs passed on possibility of signing Evans after he was rejected by Sheffield United.

- Oldham Athletic seems to be quite determined to sign him though and announcement is expected on Thursday. 2 of club sponsors will pull off, but main one keeps quiet (SportsDirect Company, which is owned by Mike Ashley, owner of Premier League Newcastle United) and one other announced that they will back club whatever decision will be decided. Oldham plans to sign him despite a new petition telling them to not do it, which was backed by over 60k people. Petition of course was created by feminist (who was also behind initial petition when Sheffield United was considering bringing back Evans)

- After many articles (especially in Guardian) which were typical with their hipocrisy ("We believe in rehabilitation, but not for Ched Evans") even Guardian yesterday finally published more reasonable piece, of course done by woman (cause no man journalist there would have a guts to be more or less pro-Evans) - http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog...arina-hyde

- Two days earlier David Conn (who is good when writing about financial situations of football clubs after they publish their annual records) have written one of the worst articles I've ever seen about this whole thing - http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog...ney-morals

- And today Martin Samuel, who despite being writer for a "Daily Mail", is one of the most respected football journalists in UK and is well known for not holding back published this one - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footbal...going.html

[Days of Broken Arrows]

The problem is that even though this case is full of holes, he's officially a "convicted rapist." Letting him play means that when a real convicted rapist wants to play, they'll have to open the door then too.

What I think he should do is try to get the verdict overturned or sue the woman for libel, false accusation, or something.

Someone needs to set some sort of legal precedent when it comes to these "regret rape" cases. If any case should remind us of the daycare witch hunts of the '80s, it's this one. In no other era would he have been convicted.

[whoishe]

He is actually trying to get verdict overturned, which actually makes things more complicated for him. He would have a better situation in strategic sense if he would show remorse (let's call it tactical remorse), but he can't do it, as it would kill his attempts to get verdict overturned.

From what I am seeing half of the anti-Evans crowd doesn't have too big of problem with a convicted rapist playing footy again (it's more realistic part of the crowd, who doesn't think footballers are or should be role models), his lack of remorse is a bigger issue for them.

I've liked one of the comments under article in Guardian - "I really don't like the fact that mob mentality is making me cheering for someone like Ched Evans"

Even today Martin Samuel has written that: "Of course, there will come a tipping point. There always is a tipping point.
There will come a moment when the fury around Ched Evans is so intense, so unbounded, so utterly uncivilised and lacking in that most basic human capacity for forgiveness that the impossible will be achieved. He will become a sympathetic character. We are not there yet, but the first stirrings have begun. "

[LeightonBlackstock]

The woman was estimated as being "two-and-a-half times over the drink-drive limit"

In terms of driving, that's a lot

In terms of not-driving, that's fuck all

[Plato]

I am a Sheffield Wednesday fan.

This case was the reason my team got promoted. Since Sheffield United (who were second) lost their star striker just in time for Wednesday (who were third) to pip them to the last remaining promotion spot by the narrowest of margins.

As for the case itself. We should all try and learn from it. It is pretty sad all round. But - the media will always take the girl's side in a situation like this.

When this shit goes down - there will be very few people looking out for you. So - you have to take every precaution you can. Any man who trusts a woman is a fool. Never put yourself in a position where her word is the only thing between you and doing time in prison.

It reminds me a lot of what Patrice O'Neal went through. He was involved in a gang bang and ended up going to prison.

It is an amazing story.

The problem is that the Ched Evans case took place in the UK. And in the UK we are fucking autistic when it comes to following the law. Questioning the outcome of a legal case is a big no-no here.

Our country used to be based on deference to the higher classes. These days it is based on deference to "experts". If somebody has better qualifications and credentials than you. He is infallible - and you are an idiot for wanting to question his decision.

And the same applies to court cases. Once the jury has made their decision - it is written in stone. And you are labelled as deranged if you argue against the verdict that the court came to.

We have a history of miscarriages of justice in the UK. But it makes no difference. Every time a big court case is concluded - you look like a loon when you voice skepticism at the outcome.

People no longer think for themselves. They just get pushed along like sheep in the direction that the media and 'the experts' have sent them in.

And that makes it nearly impossible to have a rational discussion Not that anyone is interested in one since they are too busy trying to use these sorts of cases to push their own agenda.

[RIslander]

This is the perfect case for a RVF Fire Team.

[Lizard King]

He is a convicted rapist, but he has served his time and is entitled to live as a normal person(other than parole type conditions) in society. In a manner of speaking, he is no longer a criminal.

Terrible situation for him though.

[3extra]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-...-saga.html

This was quite a balanced article I thought.

Best comment:

'These people are the real problem in society. The point you miss Allison is that this is all part of a wider narrative, all of it, to exploit male chivalry for the purpose of furthering the agenda of the few.

Take a look around. It's s**t being male these days. You are subjected to an absolute onslaught of negative press coverage to the point 100% of what you read in the MSM has absolutely nothing positive to say about male sexuality (or masculinity). In fact, it treats it like it's pathological.

In this case, everything orientated around whether she was capable of giving consent (not whether or not she actually gave consent). The jury declared that her sex with Clayton was consensual, but her sex with Ched was not. There's your first big flag. In one moment she was consensual, in the next she wasn't.

The second big flag is in the tweets she sent in the aftermath about "winning big" - this was a girl who usually drank a lot of alcohol, and she was seen, on the night and at the stage of maximum intoxication, sending coherent text messages, walking unaided, holding a conversation with another person, ordering food and paying with the correct money etc. The jury accepted her sex with Clayton was consensual, yet despite all of these indications of what she was capable of in this state, the jury ruled that Ched raped her.

What also amazes me is that only in the context of masculinity, or within the confines of a male/female exchange, could such a judgement be made. In ANY other context this woman would be declared responsible for her actions. She would be responsible if she got into a bar brawl, she would be responsible if she got behind the wheel of a car and ran someone down. However, in the context of being confronted by horrible, aggressive masculinity, she has absolutely no responsibility for her actions whatsoever.

THIS is the narrative and it infantilises women in the face of perceived male aggression.

The true fact is, despite all their claims to "1 in 5 women have been raped" (which has been declared bogus time and time again), or "there's an epidemic of rape on college campuses", rape and sexual assault has gone down year on year and I'm referring to the actual figures, not the imagined figures.

In reality, and this one will shock you, more men are raped in the US than women every year (when you incorporate prison statistics), yet it barely gets a second glance because it doesn't conform with the narrative that all women are oppressed and infantile in the face of male aggression.

Rather, feminism treats every micro-exchange like the oppression Olympics:

1. It doesn't matter if it happens to men, it happens to women outside of prison, more often.

2. It doesn't matter if more men are raped than women, it's men doing the raping. Which is of course to suggest that all men are responsible for the actions of all other men, which logically extends to "all women are responsible for the actions of all other women."

It's all circular with these people, because they aren't concerned about championing women any more, they are concerned about one thing and one thing alone: reinforcing the narrative that masculinity is evil and oppressive. Even to this day the notion prevails, the patriarchy is "the systemic oppression of all women by all men for the purposes of male privilege."

1. I don't meet very many privileged males. I'm told by feminists I'm privileged through virtue of my gender and my ethnicity - "white privilege" - yet, when you look at the bottom rungs of society (homelessness, suicide rate etc.) it's all men. All of it. And typically white men.

2. When you ask for them to make this theory more tangible, they can't. They can't pinpoint WHO - specifically, who (Angela Merkel? Nicola Sturgeon? Harriet Harman?) - is doing the "oppressing", yet in every instance the patriarchy is deferred to when a question is posed feminism has no answer to. More men than women are homeless? It's the patriarchy. More workplace deaths among men? It's the patriarchy. Girls are outperforming boys at levels of the schooling system and 60% of University applications made last year were made by women? Oh, but women still earn less than men, and that's the fault of the patriarchy. 80% of primary school teachers are women? Oh, that's the patriarchy creating social rules for men and women, it's social conditioning.

3. When I challenge the viewpoint that the systemic oppression of women exists in the UK, I'm deemed the misogynist and the radical. Yes, me!

It all helps reinforce the narrative. Even the pay gap has been disproved thousands of times by leading male and female economists and academics. It has been showin that the ONS data:

1. Only accounts for 1% of the population. It doesn't compare like with like, we could be comparing chip shop workers to CEOs for all we know.
2. It doesn't account for men working longer hours and more overtime (again, 'the patriarchy is invoked to explain this), as stated by the ONS. It doesn't account for men being far more likely to relocate for employment, or working more hazardous professions, or having more experience. There is no national framework for job evaluation yet all of the oppression rhetoric is formed around this data.
3. Even within the reports it states "the data shouldn't be used to determine whether women receive equal pay for equal work."

Despite all of this, and women like Christina Hoff Sommers coming forth and disproving the existence of any 'pay gap' time and time again, our dishonest politicians, as they do with rape, paedophilia, domestic violence and social stigmas like racism, xenophobia and misogyny, exploit all of these social crimes to denounce masculinity, undermine the rule of law, enforce discrimination against men, provide unequal treatment for men within the prison system (we don't even investigate sexual assault in UK prisons) and generally create a climate of fear, with incessant and wildly disproportionate propagation of all the evils of masculinity (and omit all of its successes and contributions).

Without masculinity this country is on its knees. Masculinity is the author of civilisation. Yet nowadays men and boys, owing to this constantly reinforced narrative, are the last social grouping in society which can be attacked with complete and utter impunity.'

[whoishe]

Apparently deal is off. Looks like pressure from club sponsors is the main reason.

There are also some rumours about threats to the club’s staff and their families.

[bojangles]

That's brilliant

[3extra]

More light reading:

https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/...eam-media/

'The alleged victim, a 19-year-old waitress, testified that she had drunk two glasses of wine, four double vodkas with lemonade, and a shot of sambuca. But she told police she “felt tipsy but not out of control”. She agreed that she had met McDonald casually on the street, and that he took her back to the hotel, where they were joined by Evans.

Later, the woman woke up ‘naked and confused’ in a hotel bed with no memory of anything since leaving a dancing session with friends the previous night. One could argue that after two glasses of wine, four double vodkas with lemonade – and a shot of sambuca – such confusion was less than surprising, but no: the alleged victim “suspected that her memory loss was due to a spiked drink”. Her somewhat cavalier self-diagnosis is still the only evidence we have that such a thing happened.

The only cast-iron chemical evidence we do have is that samples of her blood showed traces of cocaine and cannabis. She denied taking either on the night of the incident…because as we know, she was tipsy but not out of control: but on the other hand, she woke up suspecting a spiked drink. Cocaine and dope are not the drink-spiking substances of choice among date-rapists, I’m told.

The thing I find truly staggering from Judge Merfyn Hughes’s sentencing remarks is this extract:

“The complainant was 19 years of age and was extremely intoxicated. CCTV footage shows, in my view, the extent of her intoxication when she stumbled into your friend..”

Hang on a minute: let’s just get two things straight here. On the one hand, the jury has been told that the alleged victim suspected her drinks “had been spiked”. But on the other, we are told that before either accused had plied her with any drink at all “she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse”. Yet when filmed on that CCTV footage, she“felt tipsy but not out of control”.

I’m sorry, but something has to give here: either the Judge’s assessment of her condition was wrong – or she was wrong.

In the light of what the alleged victim admitted she’d drunk, I would respectfully submit the Judge (and jury, as it happens) were right about her condition, and she was wrong. So I am at a loss to understand why the woman’s suspicions of a spiked drink were taken seriously.

However, where I find the Judge’s legal extrapolation of her condition morally barmy is in this bit: “she was in no condition to have sexual intercourse”. Er, I’m sorry?

I have lost count – indeed, I don’t want to think about – the number of times I have stumbled into sexual and consensual intercourse with ladies who were just as drunk as I was. As Jilly Cooper once famously remarked, “Most sexual voyages sail upon a sea of alcohol”. Now, this doesn’t mean to say I would walk stone cold sober into a Welsh pub, have some pissed-as-a-fart lady fall upon me, and take full advantage of her: in my not entirely superficial experience, on the whole such things give me a case of the droop…..and anyway, the ladies normally fall asleep before anything untoward can happen. So if this is what happened, then quite frankly I do regard these two leather-sphere kickers as lower than vermin.'