iris123 Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 I'm afraid Miss webster has no authority to comment on any of this given her clear hypocrisy re the Tyson comment and the grey area of morals that is glamour sex photography Not an expert on her career,but going by the pix on the previous link she is in her underwear!!! Nothing different to Naomi Campbell or Kate Moss.Even if she got her booh bees out it doesn't mean she can't have an opinion on suspected rape cases,or are we turning into an Islamic state? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midland Red Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 Whether or not Evans was guilty, he served his punishment, and is therefore now entitled to take up a job, whether it be his former profession or a new one, in order to support himself and any dependants If he chooses his former profession, and his former employer is willing to take him on, that should be the end of the story, and Evans should be allowed to get on with his life Many footballers have served time - Barton, Ferguson, van Persie, etc - and all returned to the sport - the ones who shouldn't be allowed are those that cheat on the game, like Plymouth's Jimmy Gauld, who was quite rightly banned for life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 I read plenty about the case ...I know that Evans friend was found not guilty and also said like Evans that she gave her consent to have sex with them both . So based on what the girl said how can they all agree what happened as you say ? as quite clearly they don't .. How did the jury find one guilty and the other not guilty ... Was she only out of head when she had sex with Evans and not with McDonald ? . Explain to me how if she was out of head and could not give consent how was Mcdonald found not guilty ? TBH, McDonlads took her back to the hotel. So it could be assumed that by her going back to the hotel with him she give implied consent. While Evans turned up later, so there no proof of consent. But, the girl didnt got to the police about a rape, she went about a stolen/lost handbag. The police while speaking to Evans and McDonald about the handbag questioned if she had been raped and charged them with rape. Only then did the victim decide she had been raped. Regardless of his guilty/innocence, she should be allowed to play football. Unless a club has specific rules that says they don't employ these type if criminals and carry out CRB checks. I could go back to my job if I'd done it (or at least been found guilty of it), why shouldn't he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 I think its totally wrong for Charlie Webster to be pilloried for her moral stance on this issue!! No matter what people think of Evans, its Charlie's decision to stand down as a Patron of her local club, based on her own beliefs and personal experiences - and good for her for doing so! Other patrons and sponsors have also stepped aside and made their feelings known and there is nothing wrong with that. I have no issue with Evans having served his punishment and trying to resume a career and the club will undoubtedly make a decision on his future with them - taking into account all commercial, social and 'political' pressures. I mean, its not as if he's Darcy Ward is it??????????!!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 TBH, McDonlads took her back to the hotel. So it could be assumed that by her going back to the hotel with him she give implied consent. While Evans turned up later, so there no proof of consent. But, the girl didnt got to the police about a rape, she went about a stolen/lost handbag. The police while speaking to Evans and McDonald about the handbag questioned if she had been raped and charged them with rape. Only then did the victim decide she had been raped. Regardless of his guilty/innocence, she should be allowed to play football. Unless a club has specific rules that says they don't employ these type if criminals and carry out CRB checks. I could go back to my job if I'd done it (or at least been found guilty of it), why shouldn't he? The main point of the case is that and no time was the girl in any state to consent to sex ...so with that in mind how can one by guilty and the other not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch958 Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 Not an expert on her career,but going by the pix on the previous link she is in her underwear!!! Nothing different to Naomi Campbell or Kate Moss.Even if she got her booh bees out it doesn't mean she can't have an opinion on suspected rape cases,or are we turning into an Islamic state? not exactly feminist is it - objectifying herself as a sex object for male gratification another example of her hypocrisy imo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Turner Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) Those of you who take issue with Charlie's stance clearly are remote from the effect this horrendous crime has on victims, their immediate families, their careers, education,mental and physical health. They no longer have the ability to enjoy and benefit from from a trusting, loving relationship. Social interaction becomes an ordeal, they hide behind closed doors and drawn curtains, an unplanned knock from a caller or visitor sends them into blind panic, shopping, a visit to the Doctors or Dentist cannot be done unaccompanied. Without boring everyone life never is and can never be the same or normal and I relate this to a victim who has suffered for 30 years and another for 24. One had the audacity to help someone who said they were lost and gave them directions the other accepted a lift from a colleague both have never forgiven themselves for being honest enough to trust someone in both cases in safe environments, as far as both are concerned they were the guilty party themselves and all the counselling and medication hasn't changed a thing. It's stupid posts like this that cause problems. Nobody is saying rape isn't awful. We are disputing the fact that this supposed rape even took place. When somebody cries rape why is the man default guilty? It is all too easy for women to cry rape and men are practically defenceless. Think back to your last one night stand and tell me what evidence you have that it was consensual? Did you sign a contract? Did you catch the whole thing on CCTV? It is a crime that is practically impossible to defend yourself from when a woman makes an allegation. So with that in mind, how can any of us possibly say with any certainty that he is guilty of the crimes with which he has been charged? He may well be an innocent man who has just spent a sizable chunk of his free life in jail, for a crime he did not commit, and even now that he has served his time, which one would argue is sufficient enough, he now faces a black cloud over his future and the end of his career. Charlie Webster doesn't give a hoot about rape victims. This is the most publicity she's ever had and she's grabbing it with both hands. She doesn't care one bit that she is at the forefront of destroying Ched's career simply to further her own. Edited November 13, 2014 by Snorlax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike.Butler Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) i wonder how many of us would welcome our daughters dating mr. evans rather than our sons dating ms webster? Edited November 13, 2014 by Mike.Butler 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch958 Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 i wonder how many of us would welcome our daughters dating mr. evans rather than our sons dating ms webster? top post! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 I think its totally wrong for Charlie Webster to be pilloried for her moral stance on this issue!! No matter what people think of Evans, its Charlie's decision to stand down as a Patron of her local club, based on her own beliefs and personal experiences - and good for her for doing so! Other patrons and sponsors have also stepped aside and made their feelings known and there is nothing wrong with that. I have no issue with Evans having served his punishment and trying to resume a career and the club will undoubtedly make a decision on his future with them - taking into account all commercial, social and 'political' pressures. I mean, its not as if he's Darcy Ward is it??????????!!!! If you're going to make moral stands, you have to accept people will question you. If people don't then it'll be assumed everyone agrees with her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halifaxtiger Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 The main point of the case is that and no time was the girl in any state to consent to sex ...so with that in mind how can one by guilty and the other not Picking a bloke up in bar and going back to his hotel room with him is likely to be seen as consensual sex - as they say in the Telegraph, you're not going back there to play Scarbble. If that blokes mate (or mates) turn up afterwards for the same treatment, that could easily be non consensual. That's what happened here. I certainly don't think for one second that Charlie Webster has done this to court publicity. As someone who has apparently been assaulted herself, it is entirely reasonable that she wants nothing to do with a club that is employing a convicted rapist. The difficulty for her is that this case is subject to review and Evans conviction could be quashed. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midland Red Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 I thought that the subject of this thread revolved around whether Ched Evans' former employers are/will be right to offer him the opportunity to return to his former profession We can debate whether he should have been found guilty or not of the charge of rape, but that isn't what the dreadful Miss Webster's point is, or was - it was about Evans being allowed back to work Perhaps it would be better to stick to the re-employment issue, and leave the question of rape or non-consensual intercourse to others PS. If I had a son, I trust he'd choose better than Miss Webster! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E I Addio Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 Picking a bloke up in bar and going back to his hotel room with him is likely to be seen as consensual sex - as they say in the Telegraph, you're not going back there to play Scarbble. If that blokes mate (or mates) turn up afterwards for the same treatment, that could easily be non consensual. That's what happened here. I certainly don't think for one second that Charlie Webster has done this to court publicity. As someone who has apparently been assaulted herself, it is entirely reasonable that she wants nothing to do with a club that is employing a convicted rapist. The difficulty for her is that this case is subject to review and Evans conviction could be quashed. The first three lines are absolutely spot on. The last line is something that may or may not occur in the future and shouldn't affect what is done today.. At this point in time he stands as a convicted rapist and the club , rightly or wrongly are apparently offering his job back. The Criminal Review Commission don't have the power to quash the sentence, they only have the power to send it back to the Court of appeal to look at it again and that almost always only do so if some fresh evidence has turned up. It appears that Evans girlfriends wealthy father has hired a fresh legal team and an ex-detective to "find " some fresh evidence, but the Court of appeal won't overturn the conviction lightly. I am always suspicious of these cases when a bit of money produces fresh witnesses after the original conviction. Neither Evans not the girl involved come out of this well. Difficult to have sympathy for either of them but as far as Cheerful Charlie is concerned there is nothing wrong with her exercising her right to protest if she feels strongly enough but the pictures of her in a lad's mag do sort of undermine her credibility as a moral crusader. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 The first three lines are absolutely spot on. The last line is something that may or may not occur in the future and shouldn't affect what is done today.. At this point in time he stands as a convicted rapist and the club , rightly or wrongly are apparently offering his job back. The Criminal Review Commission don't have the power to quash the sentence, they only have the power to send it back to the Court of appeal to look at it again and that almost always only do so if some fresh evidence has turned up. It appears that Evans girlfriends wealthy father has hired a fresh legal team and an ex-detective to "find " some fresh evidence, but the Court of appeal won't overturn the conviction lightly. I am always suspicious of these cases when a bit of money produces fresh witnesses after the original conviction. Neither Evans not the girl involved come out of this well. Difficult to have sympathy for either of them but as far as Cheerful Charlie is concerned there is nothing wrong with her exercising her right to protest if she feels strongly enough but the pictures of her in a lad's mag do sort of undermine her credibility as a moral crusader. So every female modelling underwear/swimwear in a lad's mag is clearly 'asking for it' then??!! The mind boggles. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruiser McHuge Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 Dinosaurs roam this forum obviously......it's no wonder the average age at a speedway meeting looks like it's about 70 plus judging by the attitudes displayed on here... Charlie Webster is right...the other 3 patrons who have resigned are right, including a male, the sponsors are right....And especially since the Ched Evans media release Sheffield Utd are wrong... And Charlie Webster is currently at the 02 doing interviews and features with the tennis players at the ATP finals...her career is already going ok....I think she's better off without speedway and its supporters to be honest. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 Picking a bloke up in bar and going back to his hotel room with him is likely to be seen as consensual sex - as they say in the Telegraph, you're not going back there to play Scarbble. If that blokes mate (or mates) turn up afterwards for the same treatment, that could easily be non consensual. That's what happened here. I certainly don't think for one second that Charlie Webster has done this to court publicity. As someone who has apparently been assaulted herself, it is entirely reasonable that she wants nothing to do with a club that is employing a convicted rapist. The difficulty for her is that this case is subject to review and Evans conviction could be quashed. Picking a bloke up in bar and going back to his hotel room with him is likely to be seen as consensual sex - as they say in the Telegraph, you're not going back there to play Scarbble. If that blokes mate (or mates) turn up afterwards for the same treatment, that could easily be non consensual. That's what happened here. I certainly don't think for one second that Charlie Webster has done this to court publicity. As someone who has apparently been assaulted herself, it is entirely reasonable that she wants nothing to do with a club that is employing a convicted rapist. The difficulty for her is that this case is subject to review and Evans conviction could be quashed. Not really ..they showed cctv of the women of the falling over etc during the night at take aways etc that what used to show she was not in control of what she was doing that includes going to back to a hotel room . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) Charlie should not be criticised for standing by her principles in this matter and, as others have said, she is not alone in exercising them. I have my own views as to why the jury came to the decisions it did. Evans is fortunate in that his girlfriend has forgiven him for: - attending, at short notice, a specific hotel room - taking sexual advantage of a female who, apparently, was in no fit state to consent or otherwise to what then occurred - then slipped out the back of the hotel to avoid 'being recognised' by anyone (tacit admission that he was a 'personality' in the area) It is difficult to see just what he can come up with to prove his 'innocence'. Edited November 14, 2014 by TonyE 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E I Addio Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 So every female modelling underwear/swimwear in a lad's mag is clearly 'asking for it' then??!! The mind boggles. No, that's not what was said at all. Nothing to do with"asking for it" Have all those years of self abuse affected your eyesight ? Try reading it again. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LagutaRacingFan Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 I thought that the subject of this thread revolved around whether Ched Evans' former employers are/will be right to offer him the opportunity to return to his former profession We can debate whether he should have been found guilty or not of the charge of rape, but that isn't what the dreadful Miss Webster's point is, or was - it was about Evans being allowed back to work Perhaps it would be better to stick to the re-employment issue, and leave the question of rape or non-consensual intercourse to others PS. If I had a son, I trust he'd choose better than Miss Webster! If he turns down Charlie Webster then I would suggest that maybe Women aren't quite for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Third Man Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 I read plenty about the case ...I know that Evans friend was found not guilty and also said like Evans that she gave her consent to have sex with them both . So based on what the girl said how can they all agree what happened as you say ? as quite clearly they don't .. How did the jury find one guilty and the other not guilty ... Was she only out of head when she had sex with Evans and not with McDonald ? . Explain to me how if she was out of head and could not give consent how was Mcdonald found not guilty ? No one has or can prove 100 % she was to drunk not to consent and lets not forget that she was such a nice girl that they found traces of cocaine and other drugs that had been using the days before that night out ...it's a piss poor case based on the word a druggie .and you me or no one can prove it to be rape without reasonable doubt as the law asks . not quite true as 12 people did find him guil beyond a reasonable doubt can you explain "what sort of girl you need to be" to be able to persue a rape case, i thought anyone could, you obviously think the law does not apply to some girls. bit like evans telling the police "i am a footballer and i can do what i want" again evidence given in court 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.