aka Dus

I've realised that I have made up my mind, that he was guilty of that which he was charged. But if his appeal was successful, I wonder would I change my mind.

There was a spate of combined Brendan-Rafa best XIs on the forum a few weeks ago and the skipper's joined in, from an article in GQ Pepe Johnson Carra Sami JAR Xabi Masch Himself Luis Robbie Torres

Stuart Gilhooley is the solicitor for the PFAI. I've met him once or twice and he's a very solid chap. He's gone on a very public solo run here. He was similarly vocal about going against the accepted narrative in Suarez-Evra, though he is a Liverpool fan. http://pfai.ie/news/hanging-ched-%E2%80%93-double-jeopardy-court-public-opinion HANGING CHED – DOUBLE JEOPARDY IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINIONIt’s hard to like Ched Evans. He cheats on his girlfriend. By having sex with a young girl who has just has performed the same act with his mate while he watches. And other friends peer through the window. In the pantheon of tawdry escapades that young men with too much money engage in, it’s as tacky as it is immoral. Having spent 2 ½ years in prison after being found guilty of rape, he then refuses to apologise and makes a ham-fisted, cringe-inducing video in which his loyal girlfriend is so embarrassed she can’t look at the camera. So far, so standard. Another hang-Ched-out-to-dry article. Never let him play football again. Anything else but not football. Because football is the moral guardian of our society. Are we all clear on that? No bad boys in football anymore or everyone resigns. Wait. I’ve an idea. It’s radical but if you bear with me, you might agree. Let’s take a closer look at the facts. Examine Ched’s alleged crime and maybe make a merit based decision on his life time punishment. Still with me? Good. Ched Evans, Sheffield United and Wales striker, and his footballer friend, Clayton McDonald, went on a night out. On his way home alone, Clayton meets a girl. She had been drinking. She returns to his hotel with him, according to his uncontroverted evidence, at her request. CCTV shows both of them leaving a taxi. While she is clearly not sober, she is able to walk in high heels and lift a pizza box off the ground. In the meantime, McDonald has texted Evans to say he is with a girl and the clear implication is that Evans should join him. He duly does this and they both have sex with her. McDonald leaves by the front door and Evans by the fire exit, at different times. Both were present, however, while the other was having sex. Friends of theirs attempted to watch through the window. She wakes the next morning and says she remembers nothing. She is missing her handbag (which she left outside a takeaway) and decides later to report this to the police. She claims not to recall any sex or even meeting McDonald. By tracing the players through the room booking and CCTV, both McDonald and Evans are interviewed and admit to having sex with her. There is no DNA evidence and there is no evidence of any force. After making the admissions of having sex with her, both have effectively ensured a criminal investigation. Prior to this, an allegation of rape wasn’t even contemplated due to her lack of recall. Both men were tried and bizarrely, Evans was convicted while McDonald was acquitted. Let’s examine this for a minute. There are three people in the room. Two say the sex with both men was consensual and that she was not too drunk to consent. The other says she remembers absolutely nothing. The only other person with any small contribution to make as to what occurred in the room is the night porter who hears noises coming from the room of a sexual nature, the voices being both male and female. There is no suggestion of coercion or reluctance. The prosecution case is that she was too drunk to consent. Yet the jury acquit McDonald and convict Evans despite the fact that the two acts occur within a matter of minutes of one another. There is no evidence of her having had any drink between meeting McDonald and the two sexual acts. Presumably, the jury thinking is that she met McDonald and offered to go back to his hotel so this was a form of consent. If so, it makes no sense. She says she doesn’t recall meeting him and she had no more to drink after this. If anything, presumably the passage of time would have sobered her up rather than making her more intoxicated. Most importantly, there isn’t a shred of independent evidence to suggest that she was too drunk to consent at the moment that she had sex with either man. Indeed, there is no evidence at all as even she doesn’t know what state of intoxication she was in. None of this should be taken to suggest that the girl in question has done anything wrong. She hasn’t. The reality is that this is a scene that is played out in every town in England, and no doubt Ireland, every weekend. Anyone who believes that some young adults in their late teens or 20s are not engaging in sexual acts with multiple partners is either incredibly naïve or utterly deluded. Clearly, it is a minority pursuit but it happens and it happens regularly. Many of these participants are drunk. The degree of intoxication no doubt varies but it leads us to the key question: what is too drunk to consent? How does a man determine whether or not a potential partner falls into this category? The facetious answer might be a test to walk in a straight line or even a breathalyser. Of course, these are not realistic but it helps to consider the criteria when dealing with this very sensitive and nuanced legal point. Is it a subjective test? In other words, if she says I don’t remember anything, is that enough? Clearly that can’t be right, so where does this begin and end? There is little point in trying to dissect the legal niceties of this very complex issue but suffice to say that Ched Evans has a very arguable case that he is the victim of a miscarriage of justice. If having sex with a drunk woman is rape then thousands of men are guilty of rape every day. The simple point is that degrees of intoxication are a very difficult concept for young men to grapple with when they themselves have had plenty to drink. So, let’s get to the point, should Ched Evans be allowed back in football? Clearly, if he has been a victim of miscarriage of justice then he should. However, let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that he is guilty and knew he was having sex with a woman that was too drunk to consent. In those circumstances, he has deservedly received a five year sentence and the consequences that flow from a conviction for a sexual offence. Rape is a horrific crime which, upon rightful conviction, should always be punished by a custodial sentence. 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. Ched Evans served half of his sentence and will be a registered sex offender for the rest of his life. He has most likely missed out on the best part of his career and will forever be vilified for the alleged crime. Football is a popular pastime but the idea that all of its participants should be candidates for beatification is ridiculous. We all recall the public opprobrium that greeted the return to football of convicted felons, Lee Hughes and Luke McCormick? Don’t we? Maybe not. For those who didn’t hear the muted, almost silent response to the rehabilitation of these two killers into football, here’s a reminder. Both Hughes and McCormick were found guilty of dangerous driving causing death. In the case of the McCormick, he was drunk and killed two children. When they had served their sentences, they both returned to football at Football League clubs. McCormick is currently captain of Plymouth Argyle. Hughes played league football until the age of 37 and is still playing in the Conference. While there may have been some discussion about the return of these players to football, I can recall no serious suggestion that they should not be signed by any club. Which is as it should be. They, like Evans, have served their time. Their crimes, which seem undisputed unlike Evans, were arguably worse but either way, they deserve a second chance at life. Perhaps the difference between them and Evans is that they showed remorse and apologised for their actions. But how can Evans apologise? He is convinced, and has a good argument, that he is not guilty of rape. If he apologised, then he is admitting a crime he feels he didn’t commit. Who would do that? There are certain jobs to which you cannot return as a convicted felon but there is always a reason. The argument that a League One footballer is a role model and therefore his career must end is particularly specious. Would this happen in the League of Ireland? Leaving aside the conclusion that a set of facts similar to the Evans case would never the see the light of day in an Irish courtroom, it’s hard to see how the sanctimony which has pervaded the discussion in the English media would be tolerated in this jurisdiction. 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 now appears that Sheffield United have been swayed by the verdict of the court of public opinion. Ched Evans is toxic, don’t touch him with a bargepole. From a media and marketing point of view, that’s probably right. And money always talks. But Ched Evans has served his time, whether he is innocent or guilty. He puts the ball in the net so eventually someone will take a chance on him. In the meantime, however, he continues to serve his sentence. Those who know little about his case will continue to vilify him while ignoring the fact that if it was their son, brother, friend or relative in the same position, they would fight tooth and nail to defend his name. 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.

This content is not viewable to guests.

One thing I like a lot about that goal is her celebration. Took it in her stride.

This content is not viewable to guests.

Heh heh.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

That's quite a benevolent and optimistic POV. But it's just a guess, like the rest of what we're talking about. Rafa spoke out because of feeling hamstrung by the constraints in which he had to work. I would imagine Brendan will do the same in time if it isn't sometime like you describe.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

I was hoping Garcia would react that way. Let him break his NDA and come out and tell us all what he thinks.

This content is not viewable to guests.

When he appears out of the tunnel everyone is going to want to run on the pitch for tearful hugs, like in a movie.

Can someone not post something funny about the Ev or the Mancs to cheer me up. Moyesey distracted me for about 10 minutes yesterday but even that was a bit s***.

This content is not viewable to guests.

Reducing this to 'this FA did this', 'that FA did that' is an absurd premise anyway. These are as political as megamoney contract awards get.

Stuff money in to the faces of good player until they sign, more like.

Fascinating though the splitting of hairs is, in the immediate to short term if we keep going to the Sanchezes and Costas and Mikhitaryans and whoevers and offer them better wages to come here until we recruit the 3 or 4 established high quality players we undoubtedly need, that will be a good thing for all kinds of reasons. Scouring around for the one Suarez/Torres every 4/5 years isn't going to do it.

We also have five years of negative reputation within the game to fight against And by that I mean no CL, one league challenge led by a player who left and RFH.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This kind of editorialising helps nobody. What was the big deal from Garcia of publishing the report in full if all he was going to do was give a full green light to Qatar/Russia?