UK road culture : Ched Evans vs Luke McCormick compared

[Bicycler]

Quite right. How dare they allow him to use their training facilities. Didn't they realise what message it would send out if he was allowed to walk on the same ground and breathe the same air as decent people

Ah well, at least it puts to rest the idea that this had anything to do with being a "role model" or the moral codes of professional football

[Penfolds11]

Beyond that, there is the question of the undisputed facts. He admits that he picked up a girl who was drunk and took her to a hotel for sex. This in itself shows fairly questionable (though by no means unknown amongst footballers) morality.

Unfortunately, that is not true.

The undisputed fact is that Clayton McDonald invited the girl back to his hotel room for sex. Evans arrived at the room later, while they were having sex, and asked her if he could also have sex with her. She claims she cannot remember consenting to Evans.

[thirdcrank]

Back to Blackbike's case in his OP, the toothless broadcasting watchdoggy is now reviewing what a media presenter said about the Ched Evans case. Fair enough, but when was the last time this omsbuddy took any interest in alleged slack-gobbing about road safety? Threats of running over or frightening cyclists can still be summarily dismissed as humour and posts on here suggest that complaints about the loaded wording used in descriptions of crashes get nowhere.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-30278234

[thirdcrank]

It's occurred to me that there's another comparison to be made, besides the two footballers mentioned in the thread title. Let's not forget suspected rapist Julian Assange who's now been living in self-imposed detention for over two and a half years. The significance of this to me is that having been sentenced to five years imprisonment, Ched Evans was released on licence in the normal way after half his sentence ie two and a half years.

I know that George Galloway was reported as dismissing Assange's conduct as a breach of bedroom etiquette or somesuch, but in 2015, rape is rape.

I've no doubt that the usual disclaimers should be included here: although I've not personally asked him, I presume this fugitive denies any wrong-doing. Looking at this from the top of my ivory tower rather than some squalid basement is in a foreign embassy, Sweden is a civilised, liberal country where those suspected of serious crimes can expect fair treatment.

[beardy]

It's occurred to me that there's another comparison to be made, besides the two footballers mentioned in the thread title. Let's not forget suspected rapist Julian Assange who's now been living in self-imposed detention for over two and a half years. The significance of this to me is that having been sentenced to five years imprisonment, Ched Evans was released on licence in the normal way after half his sentence ie two and a half years.

I know that George Galloway was reported as dismissing Assange's conduct as a breach of bedroom etiquette or somesuch, but in 2015, rape is rape.

I've no doubt that the usual disclaimers should be included here: although I've not personally asked him, I presume this fugitive denies any wrong-doing. Looking at this from the top of my ivory tower rather than some squalid basement is in a foreign embassy, Sweden is a civilised, liberal country where those suspected of serious crimes can expect fair treatment.

Normally yes, but not when they are wanted by the world's most powerful nation who let nothing stand in their way and are not bound by any respect for other nation's sovereignty.

[Bicycler]

but in 2015, rape is rape.

Or so the story goes. Unfortunately if you get a group of people together and ask them what in the world of drunken sexual activity constitutes rape, you get multiple different answers. This came up recently in our local and turned into an hour or so of discussion. The extreme views were quite distinct.

The feminist amongst us argued that any man (only) who did anything to a woman after she had any alcohol was a rapist, regardless of whether the woman having had the alcohol consented to these acts at the time. When someone tried to draw a distinction between rape and drunken sex which was regretted in the morning she said that they were the same.

The alternate view put forward by another of our party suggested that rape required a clear lack of consent ie. an actual "no" or for the victim to be incapacitated. She suggested that consent is often implicit (there is no explicit "would you like to...") and drunken consent is still consent. To her, waking up with a stranger with little or no memory was not of itself evidence of rape any more than waking up with pizza down the front of her was evidence that she had been force fed pizza.

I kept out the debate but my view is a bit closer to the latter than the former. To me there is a line crossed somewhere where somebody is too drunk to make decisions properly. Then again, we must be careful of automatically viewing a subsequently regretted sexual act between two equally drunk people as one abusing the other because one is a man and the other a woman.

[Mick F]

To me there is a line crossed somewhere where somebody is too drunk to make decisions properly.

I agree, but what troubles me is what about drunken driving?
"I was so drunk, I didn't know what I was doing."
Why isn't that a valid excuse when it can be with other offences?

[Psamathe]

Should clubs cater to all the prejudices of their fans? Or just this particular one? I don't buy into the idea that something which is wrong on an individual level can be right when demanded by a number of vocal people. I'm not criticising the club, rather that proportion of the public who consider themselves entitled to put pressure on an employer to not employ someone for reasons completely unrelated to their occupation.

From what I've seen on the news I have the impression it is not so much the desire of the fans but a few individuals (who "fan"status is uncertain) who have in effect started a campaign to stop the person joining any football club. And those few individuals stir it up and a portion of the fans sort of join in and the sponsors get a bit scared because of the publicity ...

And from a statement from the latest club to say no, it sounds like those objecting to his being taken on are turning really quite nasty. The club even mentioned death threats (from my memory of the report).

Ian

[Bicycler]

To me there is a line crossed somewhere where somebody is too drunk to make decisions properly.

I agree, but what troubles me is what about drunken driving?
"I was so drunk, I didn't know what I was doing."
Why isn't that a valid excuse when it can be with other offences?

Just to be clear I was on about the potential victim being too drunk to consent to sex, not rape being excusable because the rapist was drunk. Though there is an issue here that when two people are both plastered it seems unreasonable to place entirely upon the man the responsibility for judging the capacity of the woman to consent to the acts she is consenting to. The way things are going we are going to have to issue our teenage sons with consent forms.

I'm not sure I was too drunk is a valid excuse in any criminal offences, though I can understand that it might occasionally be a mitigating factor.

[AlaninWales]

Should clubs cater to all the prejudices of their fans? Or just this particular one? I don't buy into the idea that something which is wrong on an individual level can be right when demanded by a number of vocal people. I'm not criticising the club, rather that proportion of the public who consider themselves entitled to put pressure on an employer to not employ someone for reasons completely unrelated to their occupation.

From what I've seen on the news I have the impression it is not so much the desire of the fans but a few individuals (who "fan"status is uncertain) who have in effect started a campaign to stop the person joining any football club. And those few individuals stir it up and a portion of the fans sort of join in and the sponsors get a bit scared because of the publicity ...

And from a statement from the latest club to say no, it sounds like those objecting to his being taken on are turning really quite nasty. The club even mentioned death threats (from my memory of the report).

Ian

The R4 news report that I listened to said that the threats had included the threat to rape a member of the board's familly!

[reohn2]

Normally yes, but not when they are wanted by the world's most powerful nation who let nothing stand in their way and are not bound by any respect for other nation's sovereignty.

Yes,that's my take on it too.

[TonyR]

Normally yes, but not when they are wanted by the world's most powerful nation who let nothing stand in their way and are not bound by any respect for other nation's sovereignty.

Yes,that's my take on it too.

So if that's true, why is Sweden thought to be a push over and Ecuador not?

[reohn2]

Normally yes, but not when they are wanted by the world's most powerful nation who let nothing stand in their way and are not bound by any respect for other nation's sovereignty.

Yes,that's my take on it too.

So if that's true, why is Sweden thought to be a push over and Ecuador not?

I've no idea.

[mrjemm]

I read a comment somewhere, but not looked further into, that Sweden took part (or at least were complicit) in 'extraordinary rendition', which implies that they're not averse to helping the US in (morally if nothing else) illegal ways.

Not going to get into the discussion of rape, or even the general topic right now. Too tired, tense and starting my 1st beer of the weekend to get my head around this. Not that I am informed enough anyway. OK, so that doesn't usually stop me.

[beardy]

Compared to Equador, which has a clause in its USA treaty preventing extradition on political grounds which with its relationship with the USA they would accept as being the case here.
Secondly The leader makes a big show of resisting USA's hegemony and this would improve his political popularity ratings at home yet again.