Ched Evans – a poor choice of battlefield for a gender war pitched battle

Since I wrote this, Mr Evans has had his conviction for rape overturned.  He is now being allowed to resume his career as a professional footballer.

There is a multitude of questions to consider and to debate, concerning Mr Ched Evans.

  1. Is the law under which this offender was convicted, just?
  2. Did the judge direct the jury correctly? If so, why did the jury apparently reach a finding of fact that the victim was so drunk as to be incapable of giving informed consent to sexual intercourse, given that evidence of that incapacity to consent seems, at best flimsy, to many who (like myself) came at this story with an open mind?
  3. Was the jury’s verdict perverse? If so, why did the jury reach a perverse verdict?
  4. Given the reluctance of the Court of Appeal to overturn jury verdicts without new evidence, what sort of new evidence does Mr Ched need now to produce, in order to sustain an appeal, and where is he going to get that new evidence from?
  5. Is it virtuous for members of the public to seek to bring moral and economic pressure upon potential employers of a convicted offender, now paroled and looking for work, in order to disrupt the rehabilitation of one particularly offender? If so, why is that virtuous?
  6. Is a convicted offender denying his guilt, after serving his sentence, a relevant consideration, when deciding whether to offer a released convict employment, so that he can rejoin society?
  7. Ought potential employers of this particular convicted offender to give in to public moral and economic pressure, aimed at preventing this offender’s rehabilitiation? How can potential employers be expected not to give in to the mob, if funding offered for a new stadium (for example) is at stake?
  8. How is the victim ever going to sue the alleged perpetrator for damages in a civil action, if mob rule ensures that he remains unemployable?
  9. Why should this particularly complicated case have become the battle field which it has become, of a pitched battle in the gender politics war?
  10. Which of the above questions is it the the gender politics culture warriors hope to settle, by choosing this case for its next pitched battle?

The chances of anybody getting the chance even to read out the above list of questions during a four-minute slot on sound bite radio (say a dumbed-down magazine format like Woman Sour), is slim. This case needs an hour-long programme of its own, like Radio 4’s Analysis, because there aren’t just two opposing camps, who give opposite answers to all ten questions. There are ten distinct questions that need debating, not just one.

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Men's Rights

2 responses to “Ched Evans – a poor choice of battlefield for a gender war pitched battle

  1. The most important point to bear in mind about Ched Evans’ conviction is that the criminal standard of proof was not satisfied.

    The complainant offered no evidence except that she would not have done such a thing, yet she was obviously a slag because she was prepared to have sex with a stranger she met in a kebab shop.

    If she was offering no evidence, then she was unable to confirm or refute the evidence of both defendants and both defendants corroborated each other.

    At no time did the judge direct the jury appropriately as to whether Ched Evans had grounds for reasonable belief that the complainant had consented. His defence was that he had because the complainant said he could have sex with her provided he performed a sexual favour for her, which he did. Having done so – and this was corroborated by the first defendant Clayton McKenzie – he proceeded to have sex with her having reasonable belief as to her consent.

    Of course, the jury could choose not to believe Ched Evans, but if they chose not to believe him, they could not have reached a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. It could only have been reached on the balance of probabilities because the complainant herself offered no evidence, while the two defendants corroborated each other’s testimony.

    For some reason this was not raised by the defence or if raised was not taken by the judge, nor was it raised at appeal,

  2. THE PTB & MSM are controlled by cultural MARXISM of which Radical (fake) Femism is merely one strand – like the PC culture we live in today it is a product of the FRANKFURT SCHOOL/TAVISTOCK INSTITUTE it is part of the doctrine used by the ZIONIST political elite(MILLIBAND & CO) to enslave ordinary people.

Likes, follows and comments cheer me up!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s