Ched Evans and his partner, Natasha
A lawyer for a body representing footballers has likened convicted rapist Ched Evans to the Guildford Four as a fourth high-profile Sheffield United patron resigned over the ongoing row.
The Professional Footballers’ Association of Ireland defended Evans on their official website, claiming he could be innocent and that even if guilty, he deserves a chance of redemption.
The article written by solicitor Stuart Gilhooly has been removed from the PFAI website but you can read it in full here.
The difficult element of this discussion, though, is the part about the scale of the crime. There are people who will say rape is rape and degrees shouldn’t come into it but in sentencing these issues matter. This crime, as alleged, was at the bottom end. There was no violence and thankfully the victim has no recollection of it. This, I hasten to add, does not make it right, or anything close to it, but it is nonetheless a mitigating factor.
From Jessica Ennis-Hill to Charlie Webster and pretty much every media commentator who has waded into this mire, the horses most of these pundits have mounted are so high, they’ll need a parachute to get down. When sanctimony takes over, there is rarely any real room for serious debate.
It’s not easy to muster up too much sympathy for Evans but there is surely nothing worse than being accused of a crime which you genuinely believe you didn’t commit.
The argument against that is that a jury convicted him of the crime. That’s right. And the same applied to the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six. They got no public sympathy either.
Maybe he is guilty or perhaps he’s innocent, none of us knows for sure. Surely, either way, he deserves a chance at redemption. Don’t we all?Stuart Gilhooly is the solicitor to the PFA Ireland. He is also a journalist and has recently been shortlisted, for the fifth year in succession, a Journalist of the Year at the Irish Magazine Awards.
1. Ched Evans & McDonald both accused of rape because girl too drunk to consent. No question of violence or coercion. Girl remembers nothing
— Stuart Gilhooly (@PFAISolicitor) April 22, 2012
Evans guilty of boorish sexual opportunism no doubt and vile behaviour but this is not a crime. If he is guilty so must McDonald be — Stuart Gilhooly (@PFAISolicitor) April 22, 2012
Mr Gilhooly had also tweeted support of Ched Evans during the trial.
Update:
[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/177485007″ params=”color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false” width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]
William Crawley spoke to Stuart Gilhooly on BBC Radio Ulster’s Talkback earlier.
So it wasn’t rape-rape?
Evans ‘has Guildford Four dilemma’ (Irish Examiner)
It’ll be interesting if the appeal backs his story.
Exactly why did the woman go to a hotel room with two men ?
Either way Evans has a right to resume his job just like anybody else.
Going to a room with someone does not give them permission to do what they want with you.
As I understand it, she went to a hotel room with one man. She had drunken but consensual sex with him. Charmer that he is, this man texted convicted rapist Ched Evans and invited him over for a bit of non-consensual sex after she’d passed out. She did not consent to sex with CE. Non-consensual sex is rape. Their two mates, equally charming, filmed it all through the window.
ugh. that’s like maximum creepy.
It is a difficult one.
The lads claim that she consented, the hotel porter heard her making noises during ‘sex’ but heard nothing distressing in it. She herself says she can’t remember if she consented or not.
Obviously the jury was satisfied but reading about the case, it seems very ambiguous. Some of her correspondence, possibly read out of context, does put a cloud around her motivations after the incident.
None of that is to support the sleazy behaviour of these men but whether he should have been convicted or not is up for question.
“Some of her correspondence, possibly read out of context, does put a cloud around her motivations after the incident.”
What exactly has she got out of this? Having to change her identity twice? Wow, what a gold digger.
Was she going there to look at his stamp collection ?
Nah, basically she knew what the game was and when she woke up in the morning filled with remorse out came the rape allegation.
As I say,let’s wait until the appeal is heard.
My money is on Ched clearing his name., even though Ched is rather an unusual one.
My money is on you having absolutely no idea of the facts of this case
+1
My money is on somewhere in the middle.
The middle of my a**
I too have read all the facts and conclude that you shouldn’t have sex with unconscious women, ever.
#notallfoottheballers
There was no real suggestion that she was unconscious during the timeline, but that she may have been too intoxicated to give informed consent. I’m not suggesting that would be ok but there seems be to be no sense in making up the facts of the case.
She suggested her drink may have been spiked but no traces of such were found in her blood.
Can I just say at this juncture that I myself (male) have drank to such a rediculous point that a large proportion of my evening has disappeared yet at no point, during the course of that evening, was I unconscious. Infact to the contrary. Despite missing hours I still made it home and managed to order a bag of chips before I got there. Was I raped?
Crystal clear. Have boobies, stay home unless escorted.
@Same Old Guy – key point being you made it home, rather than ending up naked in a strange hotel room
@Don Pidgeoni I’ve woken up in a strange room, naked, not knowing where I was. Wouldn’t claim rape though. If I’m going home with some stranger it’s pretty obvious it’s not going to be for just a for a nice chat until I hop in a taxi and make my way home. If there was no sex involved I’d be very disappointed, that’s why you go home with a stranger.
Good for you Jay. Have a cookie
@Jay
but she woke up naked and the guy who had fecked off out the fire escape after doing the deed was not the guy she went to the room with.
Bit of a difference between staggering back to someone’s room for a bit of ‘you know what’ and then when you pass out, being treated like a public amenity.
Exactly why did the woman go to a hotel room with two men ?
Could the answer to this change anything?
Agreed, it is irrelevant whether she agreed to go to a hotel room or not. What matters is if she agreed to have sex or not.
Two wholly separate things.
Agreed, it is irrelevant whether she agreed to go to a hotel room or not. What matters is if she agreed to have sex or not.
Two wholly separate things.
And she cannot remember if she did or not. Am I missing something? Is failure to recall consent the same as not giving it?
If both a parties wake up and cannot recall anything about the night before did they rape each other?
by itself no. There was discussion of memory loss versus disinhibition and ability to consent.
It’s not advisable to be so out of your head that you can’t remember stuff the next day, but there’s a difference between making yourself an easy target and actually being ‘fair game’ for whoever comes in the room to just slide in and ‘have a go’ while you’re passing out on the bed.
The Jury believed that the woman, although fairly drunk agreed to go back with McDonald and have sex. What they didn’t buy was that Evans came in later and she agreed to sex with him.
It would appear that the Jury saw him as the type of guy who screws a girl either while she’s in a blur, half asleep or asleep, and possibly not even aware it’s a different guy to the one she entered the room with.
The fact that he left via the fire escape didn’t help his case either.
@Sam Fair enough. It doesn’t sound like he is a very nice guy and I know what my intuition would tell me but the law (in a criminal trial like this one) needs to be much more precise.
Correct me if I am wrong on this, but McDonald called Evans to join him in the room, which would mean she went to the room with one man.
And other friends watched through a window – ugh.
She didn’t go to the room with two men. FFS.
and even if she had, she could then have changed her mind about having sex with one or both of them. How is it possible that Flashman did not think of this? What on earth does it say about him/her not to have thought of this? Disgusting.
Clearly if she went into a room with two men she is a dirty wh***. This case really brings out the a**hats.
I think that Taylor Swift said it best:
‘And the haters gonna hate hate hate hate hate
I’m just gonna rape rape rape rape rape
Rape it off
Rape it off’
Taylor always says its best Mani and you know it
The law is a funny beast.
If a man is too drunk to consent to sex it’s not rape.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/apr/28/2
Now, shut up.
Tbf that’s not an Irish case. In Ireland the definition of rape is extremely narrow. Read it and weep with frustration at how archaic Irish statutes are. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1990/en/act/pub/0032/sec0004.html#sec4
Like it basically means a woman can’t possibly (legally speaking) be guilty of raping a man.
My reply was more out of frustration at the inevitable “but men” comment. I know its a strict law but how look! Women can be guilty of rape too!
Yeah I know what you mean.
Depends on the circumstances.
Why are people from Sheffield United still resigning, I thought they said they weren’t going to sign him?
Of course, he will probably take that as meaning that they want to sign him
I see what you did there.
He was training with the team during the week, so people have taken it that sheffield are supporting him.
Ah makes perfect sense now. So if a crime happens and I don’t remember it then it’s okay and shouldn’t be a real crime. Got it.
and if the victim doesn’t remember it then they definitely won’t have deep psychological trauma and a long-term sense of personal violation as a result of the incident.
Glad that’s cleared up, thanks Gilhooly.
Surely the point is it is only a crime if she didn’t consent. If she cannot remember anything then the law assumes that there was no consent?
“When sanctimony takes over” – No, Gilhooley, sanctimony has not taken over. And high-horse my hoop! It is because of genuine disgust that the female patrons have resigned over his re-signing. If my work hired a convicted rapist I would feel seriously unsafe in their presence. As for comparing him to the Guildford Four, well that is a seriously clunky strawman argument purely designed to distract. Bullsh*t.
“It is because of genuine disgust that the female patrons have resigned over his re-signing.”
Paul Heaton resigned too, he’s a male by the way. Oh and Dave Berry too, he’s a man also…. do you not think they resigned out of ‘genuine disgust’ too or is this a female only genuine disgust.
Please don’t turn this into male v female thing, it’s not.
I’m not doubting that Clampers and I am not trying to turn it into that. It’s the two who are mentioned above, Jessica Ennis-Hill and Charlie Webster who are female.
Apologies Missread,
So… Gilhooly mentions the women who stepped down and ignores the men…… ah hear!
Yes I was just going to say that, Gilhooley conveniently failed to mention anyone other than the women who quit, and tries to make them sound like they’re sitting on their high horse instead of taking a serious stand. Maith an Clampers for spotting it
footballer and his mates rent a hotel roon with the sole purpose of finding a drunk girl to have sex with.
girl is too drunk to give consent, aren’t some footballers great people! !
Bugger all to do with being a footballer. You’re hearing about this case because he’s relatively well known. Thousands of similar cases where a Joe Soap is the perpetrator will go unnoticed and uncovered.
relatively well known? for rape yes, for football no!
:-)
Why is he even getting involved? Nothing to do with him!
‘Sure didn’t God impregnate Mary, a married woman, without the consent of her husband? I don’t think I’m exaggerating here to say Gil is like God’
Nice one, Mani!
But hould your horses a bit, she wasn’t a married woman yet. Matthew 1:18, Luke 1:26 – and she consented.
Is it true that the reason nuns wear wimples is that the ear was defined in the medieval church as a sexual organ, because that’s how Mary conceived?
Interesting. Words entering ears are also how ideas are conceived, propagated (or would have been, in an illiterate world). Sexually transmitted thinking. Lot’s to unpack there, but it’s almost lunchtime.
You have your holy text and I have mine.
Book of Cthulu 1:24 ‘And the Lord said unto Mary ‘I know y’all be about Joseph but as your Lord I’ve gots to have a taste of Mary before he gets up in you’
Give a copy to my Ma, I’d love a read :)
We’ve worked our way through 7 of the 10 Carnal Commandments. Once we clear the 10 I’ll give you a loan. On a related topic, do you know where I could get my hands on a ‘Horned goat of virtue true, under an oak tree blessed’? I’m not sure if the virtue true is a vital component but the oak tree bit is a deal breaker apparently.
Yes, head north to farthest northern parts of Scandinavia in the dead of winter dressed in only a loin cloth, for traditional and ceremonial reasons.
There you’ll meet the Sami people who will give you what you are looking for…. and with a little luck, you’ll not make it home.
If you do make it back, your next trip will be for a four month course in Tuvan throat singing in Mongolia, naked. To em.. cleanse the spirit or something.
Have a good trip! :)
Oh no, I’m not falling for that again.
Droite de (Notre) Seigneur, eh?
ia! ia! Cthulu ftaghn!
Can we please stop pouring money into a dead language when the country’s children are eating cardboard for breakfast? It is a national scandal.
Cue the mob of angry gaeilgeoirs now from their cushy civil-service swivel chairs.
Woah, yeah, I mean when you think about it, it wasn’t so much a sexual act at the lower end of the criminal scale, as a crime at the upper end of the sexy scale.
Caroline, I love your comments. Well done.
I’m both laughing and wincing. It’s like Zap Brannigan from a darker timeline.
This is the club’s statement about him going back to training if you haven’t read it
http://www.sufc.co.uk/news/article/20141111-statement-2078346.aspx
Basically, everything is fine and he shares their “value judgements” that rape is terrible….
It’s not a bad statement, in fairness. It manages to assert his right to work without minimising his crime, unlike that clown up there.
It tip-toes around his crime and his complete lack of remorse and that fact that he has not apologised at all but wants rehabilitation. Part of rehabilitation is acknowledging what you have done.
SUFC didnt listen to the public hence their surprise at how vocal and angry people were once they found out he had trained with them. Complete a** covering statement.
The fact that he maintains his innocence is obviously a problem for them. They are careful to point out that their decision is based on the verdict as it stands, not on the outcome of his appeal.
But as you say below, the term mob justice clangs uncomfortably.
In any case, I’m glad it’s not my club.
I get they are trying to make money but they are backing the wrong horse on this one given public opinion
I don’t think anyone mentioned money. What do you mean?
Footballer is good, club gets goals, goals get endorsements and club goes up the league, club makes money
Oh, I know how it works. It just sounded like you were responding to something specific.
I agree with your assessment, though. I think it will do them huge harm if they take him back.
In fairness, the club makes valid points that the man has served his time, the club condemns his crime, the PFA asked for him to be allowed to train, that post-sentence extrajudicial punishments are not part of the legal process.
“The Club agrees with the recent statements of The PFA, to the effect that professional footballers should be treated as equals before the law, including in circumstances where they seek to return to work following periods of incarceration. The Club rejects the notion that society should seek to impose extrajudicial or post-term penalties on anyone. In a nation of laws, served by an elected parliament and duly constituted courts of law, there can be no place for ‘mob justice’. The Club believes that the only penalties following from a conviction on any charge should be those set forth in law and deemed appropriate by a court of competent jurisdiction. “
“mob justice”
Or people not wanting a rapist as a role model for kids. Seems reasonable to me.
It’s a fair point, Don P, but where do you stop with it? Should no formerly convicted man be allowed work again in any sort of public role? Or does this only apply to sex crimes?
Is it the lack of remorse, given that he maintains his innocence? Should there be done sort of public remorse acceptability scale for released prisoners?
Furthermore, if he *was* a convicted rapist and his conviction is overturned on appeal, but the facts obviously don’t change (certainly not in the public mind), just the verdict, is it OK then for him to return to Sunderland?
Personally, if you have committed any serious crime, I don’t think morally you should be in a public role at all (exceptions notwithstanding). As for footballers, its fairly clear in this case that the public, both fans and non-fans don’t want him there. They are telling the club where the line is for them.
@ivan – I don’t really care if his conviction is overturned. That he had sex with someone who was clearly so drunk that the hotel manager was worried about her, that not a “mistake”, that’s a choice based on your own greed and idiocy. And it makes you a horrible person.
Fair enough Don; I wouldn’t want his company on a night on the tiles, m’self – I *do* think that cluster’s point should be addressed, and by everybody. Not here, and not now, but the notion of punishing people (in terms of not allowing them work, say) when they’ve NOT been convicted of something but because they’re ‘a horrible person’ might leave one on shaky ground.
I don’t partiuarly want to get into a heated exchange about it, but seriously – that’s an alarming postion to take in the general sense. It’s easy here, because this man is a tw*t of the first water, but I dunno….there’d be other cases…
He was convicted by a jury to date, that has not been overturned. So any debate about whether he deserves his job back because he wasn’t convicted is a moot point. I don’t think he should get it back even if it is overturned for reasons I have already stated.
No one is saying he shouldn’t work., there are a million jobs he could do that don’t involved him walking back into the same privileged position he was in before his crime. Its not like football is all he can do. If he was a teacher, or a doctor or a lawyer or anything that involved working with vulnerable people, he also wouldn’t get his job back. And that is right and fair.
@gilhooly – Twitter is no way to conduct a trial, or to provide meaningful commentary on one.
I thought the whole case was that the women had sex, while awake, not unconscious, but then said because she was to drunk to remember she could not consent. If im wrong correct me, Im not 100% on the facts in the case.
You are nowhere near the facts of the case, in fairness.
And as to her not recalling the events – the victim has been hounded into protective custody twice by supporters of the convicted rapist Ched Evans. She probably found that fairly traumatic.
I think this statement gives a good idea what the FAI think about this kind of crime, and they, and their attitude, stink.
As i said i wasn’t sure on the case.
He was fairly close to the facts of the case as the defence would present them.
Facts here:
https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans
And people wonder why rape goes unreported so often. Poor girl.
This case reminds me of a similar one in Australia. An AFL player had a rape charge dropped. Later, it appears that some of the police were supporters of his footy club, so did not pursue the case as strongly as they should.
He has just pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, 10 years later, after he has completed his footy career, and has had no criminal conviction recorded.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-18/stephen-milne-fined-without-conviction-over-indecent-assault/5898782
At least, in the Evans case, he has served time.
[Not to be confused with me belittling or supporting his crime.]
This crime, as alleged, was at the bottom end.
Unfortunate choice of words there.
There was no violence and thankfully the victim has no recollection of it.
Thankfully for whom?
Just as traumatic I would think, waking up to an extra bollox and their video taping peeping toms.
I backed Sheffield Utd to be promoted this season and am concerned that all this may have a negative impact on their prospects.
In fact I wonder if the whole thing is made up by the bookies to hamper my chances.
This issue has been dragging on for MONTHS. The club’s dithering has made it even worse.
Btw how good a player is he that the club are risking all the backlash that will come with signing a convicted rapist?