True. It's not murder if someone punches you first either. Just shenanigans.

Edited by Part Time James (07 Jan 2015 10.11am)

As it happens, I have read that (it was quoted in one of the long running Ched Evans threads before). It says he raped her as she did not consent (because she was unable to do so).

And if someone punches you. And you then stab them/shoot them, that is murder.

Edited by OknotOK (07 Jan 2015 10.28am)

"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show

I don't know of many that have actually called seriously for him to be banned. They have just said they don't want him playing for their club.

And clubs have to weigh up the potential gains (playing side only as far as I can see) against the potential damage (financial, reputational) of employing him.

I wouldn't want him playing for our club. And I suspect a lot of fans and sponsors wouldn't want to be associated with a club that does employ him. There's no ban involved. It is the free market working.

"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show

He's guilty because he essentially engineered a situation where he took advantage of someone who was clearly intoxicated, with malicious intent.

Evans needs to understand that he was effectively guilty the moment the jury could prove that he knew McDonald had brought a girl home, and gained access to the hotel room (by deception) and then sneaked out (again by deception). There is no basis for him to assume he had informed consent due to his actions.

Funny enough, if you break into someones room, have sex with them when they drunk and then sneak out, you're a rapist.

McDonald is lucky that that they couldn't demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that his role was to procure a drunk woman.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

The conviction is for rape though, arguably the second most serious crime on the statute, and probably the most controversial socially.

Whilst King and Barton were convicted, imprisoned for serious offences, they weren't sexual offences (ok Kings was kind of, he punched a woman who wouldn't go home with him).

Where as Evans was convicted of raping a woman. Short of murdering her, or committing an act of treason, its the most serious crime a person can commit.

Other cases, drunk driving etc don't have that same degree of premeditation to cause harm - Even Barton and Kings offences can be placed into a context of events, where as Evans willfully committed to committing a rape.

Rolf Harris won't be returning to the BBC in a few years either, and I doubt Max Clifford can look forward to a high profile career either.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Again Jamie, you claim certainty for events that you can't be sure of.

You assume that he raped this girl, you can't know it.

I don't personally feel the level of evidence you state is sufficient of this conviction and I think the verdict is going to change.

There are a lot of uncertainties in this case portrayed as facts.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)