Sheffield United take action against Connor Brown.
robstaton: Sheffield United have iConnor Brown pending an investigation into comments he made on Twitter. #sufc
I agree with what they have done but it is the inconsistency that annoys me both players should have been suspended on full pay .So its one rule for the rapist star striker who scored 35 goals another for the stupid reserve player .
There wouldn't be much point in suspending Evans, would there? He's hardly likely to turn up at the training ground i an the near future and since he is ifrom work without good cause I also doubt if he is being paid. SUFC have nothing to gain by saying or doing while the case is sub judice.
Brown, on the other hand, has been incredibly stupid. Fortunately for him stupidity - regardless of how extreme - is not a criminal offence.
Sheffield United take action against Connor Brown.
robstaton: Sheffield United have iConnor Brown pending an investigation into comments he made on Twitter. #sufc
I agree with what they have done but it is the inconsistency that annoys me both players should have been suspended on full pay .So its one rule for the rapist star striker who scored 35 goals another for the stupid reserve player .
There wouldn't be much point in suspending Evans, would there? He's hardly likely to turn up at the training ground i an the near future and since he is ifrom work without good cause I also doubt if he is being paid. SUFC have nothing to gain by saying or doing while the case is sub judice.
Brown, on the other hand, has been incredibly stupid. Fortunately for him stupidity - regardless of how extreme - is not a criminal offence.
Except it IS illegal to name a victim like this.
I don't think there is any suggestion that Connor Brown named the victim. He called her "a slag" but I haven't seen any suggestion that what he did was illegal.
Despite what anyone thinks of him,I reckon he has a very good chance of walking on appeal as the Judges don't like it when the Jury doesn't do what its told. I also wonder if a retrial gets ordered does it have to be in the same court?
richie8. I may be just taking a really wild guess here and for all I know you may be the Lord Chief Justice but I suspect that you know f**k all about the trial system:-) Did you hear the opening or closing speeches? Did you hear the evidence? Did you hear the summing up and directions to the jury? Do you know the respective roles of the judge and jury? What in the name of sanity makes you write that the jury didn't 'do what its told'???
IF his application for leave to appeal is successful and IF he is successful in his appeal, then any retrial does not have to be in the same court.
No Im not a Lord chief whatever and have zero desire to have anything to do with the legal system in this country (one jury service finished any faith in our justice system) I have read what has been in the press and I know how stuck up judges are,you know a bit of contempt for the court gets you a heavier sentence than the bloke in the dock.As a layman I am just having a punt at what I reckon will happen. You may or may not have any legal experience or just be a bulls*****r that has got a book out of the library.I don't know enough to pass judgement on that.You don't have to be an expert in something to have a view on what you think might happen.
@Hugo unfortunately Connor allegedly did name her hence he is under investigation.
If that is the case then it certainly is illegal. I didn't see that myself but it could of course have been edited by a slightly more responsible news agency. That doesn't make the stupidity in itself a criminal offense, although as an employer I would have been concerned about it "bringing the club into disrepute".
Perhaps there ought to be a law, if not against being so stupid, then at least against displaying it publicly?
You may or may not have any legal experience or just be a bulls*****r that has got a book out of the library.
If legaladdick is "just a bulls*****r" then s/he must be absolutely brilliant at it. There are loads of threads on here where legaladdick has given interpretation/advice and they always seem to me to be authoritative and well measured. If legaladdick doesn't genuinely have a legal background, then they've truly fooled me.
You may or may not have any legal experience or just be a bulls*****r that has got a book out of the library.
If legaladdick is "just a bulls*****r" then s/he must be absolutely brilliant at it. There are loads of threads on here where legaladdick has given interpretation/advice and they always seem to me to be authoritative and well measured. If legaladdick doesn't genuinely have a legal background, then they've truly fooled me.
Cheers Stig. I fully accept people are entitled to their opinions but just get frustrated when they aren't based on knowledge of the law or known facts so I try and give some assistance. If richie8 really thinks that what I write can be gained by 'a book out of the library' then please let me know which one it is:-)
I am just saying what I think will happen,I could be completely wrong,clever lawyers get guilty people off don't they?.Legal I don't know who you are,you sound convincing(must have a few library tickets!) but as many have found it may not be who you think is behind a keyboard. All I am saying is based on what I have read in the press and on line that is what I think could well happen.To put in my terms if they were offering 7/2 or better I would have a few quid on it!
I am just saying what I think will happen,I could be completely wrong,clever lawyers get guilty people off don't they?.Legal I don't know who you are,you sound convincing(must have a few library tickets!) but as many have found it may not be who you think is behind a keyboard. All I am saying is based on what I have read in the press and on line that is what I think could well happen.To put in my terms if they were offering 7/2 or better I would have a few quid on it!
richie8 Not a problem and I don't take it personally (and I hope you don't either) but I really do know what I'm talking about. Yes clever lawyers (and some stupid ones too!!) get people off. I can assure you that what is on line and in papers ALWAYS fails to reflect the totality of either the evidence or the summing up. Let's wait and see what happens if Evans gets his appeal before the Court of Appeal.
I didn't think an appeal can be deemed frivolous? If it is not accepted to be reviewed by the Court of Appeal then other steps are taken. If it is reviewed by the court of appeal, then off the top of my head I've heard longer sentences imposed..... but LegalAddick can enlighten us: Surely it can only be increased if other evidence comes to light in the appeal process? It can be increased if the case is referred to the Court of Appeal by the attorney general to review a lenient sentence.
@Hugo unfortunately Connor allegedly did name her hence he is under investigation.
If that is the case then it certainly is illegal. I didn't see that myself but it could of course have been edited by a slightly more responsible news agency. That doesn't make the stupidity in itself a criminal offense, although as an employer I would have been concerned about it "bringing the club into disrepute".
Perhaps there ought to be a law, if not against being so stupid, then at least against displaying it publicly?
as far as I'm aware he didn't name her on twitter. he was using ched evens hash tag and saying he couldn't believe the sentence that he was given by the jury. then he began calling the girl a liar.
other supporters of Evens are the ones who have named her and aimed abuse online at her. that and sky news, who are saying no one could of possibly had seen it in real time...the same cooperation that has sky + where you can rewind live TV.
the sources in which i have based my information on are from the media (free press) in case anyone wanted to know.
@Hugo unfortunately Connor allegedly did name her hence he is under investigation.
If that is the case then it certainly is illegal. I didn't see that myself but it could of course have been edited by a slightly more responsible news agency. That doesn't make the stupidity in itself a criminal offense, although as an employer I would have been concerned about it "bringing the club into disrepute".
Perhaps there ought to be a law, if not against being so stupid, then at least against displaying it publicly?
Ignorance of the law is no defence.
No it isn't. But the only suggestion I have seen that Brown named the victim is in Bournemouth's post above. He may be in possession of information the rest of us are not privy to, but the quote the BBC for example: "The club said said Brown had been suspended with immediate effect but there is no suggestion the player had identified Evans' victim" (the double "said" is the Beeb's, not mine).
I cannot see anything there that suggests criminal behaviour. Yet as an an employer I would be concerned nonetheless.
I can conform that he didn't name the victim in his tweets. Just abused her
I would have thought his comments about the girl (who is the victim of a convicted rapist, remember) would be enough for the club to distance itself from the man.
I guess it will, as always, come down to how good/valuable the player is? It's sad but it's true.
Two questions have been raised. Afka asks if his sentence can be increased if his appeal is deemed frivolous and Redlanered asks if he has an automatic right of appeal. Dealing with the second point first, there is no automatic right of appeal. Unless the trial judge has given a certificate of appeal (highly unusual and I have read nothing that suggests he did so here) Evans will have to seek leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal. This is in writing and is decided by a single judge who may give him leave to appeal to the full court (or not.) IF I was a betting person I would think he will get leave, provided the grounds are well- crafted. If he does get leave, expect an application for bail pending appeal.
The Court of Appeal cannot increase a sentence except where on application by the Attorney General on the basis that it has been unduly lenient. The guidlines from the Sentencing Council where the victim is 16 or over, are that the starting point should be 5 years imprisonment with a range of 4-8 years which is then influenced by aggravating or mitigating factors. My expectation therefore is that the Attorney will not seek to have to refer this to the Court of Appeal as I doubt the 5 years would be considered unduly lenient. Nor do I think Evans will appeal against his sentence (or if he does that it is likely to succeed. (On a point of interest, the sentencing guideline is higher if there is 'more than one offender acting together' so Evans sentence would probably have been higher if McDonald had also been convicted.
Your comments immediately leave me with a question. If he gets the appeal, and is then granted bail would Sheff Utd play him while he is awaiting the appeal hearing which , presumably, won't be heard in a matter of days.
Gosh that chain of events would really make for some tough decisions.
@ Hugo. I'm sure I've seen it reported in more than one place that Connor had apparently named her. Including in the 2nd link provided by Karim on the previous page of this thread.
Regardless, there is an ongoing investigation so we will find out one way or another soon enougj.
I presume any appeal would take several months, and in the meantime he will be out of contract at Sheff Utd, it'll be interesting how they play it. I guess it depends on whether they are convinved he will get off, or whether they are supporting him out of misguided loyalty.
I suspect the trial judge would have been deliberately meticulous in his suming up to reduce the chances of a successful appeal. In a similar way, the 5-year sentence would have been deliberately pitched so that there will be no grounds for claiming that it was too harsh. That said, like LA, I suspect that Evans will get his appeal. Barristers do like to get some further "refreshers" in their back pockets don't they? So, do Ched's lawyers really think he's in with a shout, or do they just want a lot more of his money - you decide :-) As to whether the appeal will succeed is another matter. Don't forget that in the first instance, the CPS must have concluded that they had a reasaonable chance of a successful prosecution before taking the matter to court.
Part1 of Martin Samuels piece in the Mail , as Southend says it covers everything very well
The brochures were printed. What else could they have done? There it was, glossy as you like: Professional Footballers' Association League One team of the season, strikers Jordan Rhodes (Huddersfield Town) and Ched Evans (Sheffield United).
You can't let the small matter of a five-year rape sentence interfere with a big moment like that. And so it was that, at the Grosvenor House Hotel on Sunday, the name Ched Evans echoed across a room of football's great and good, read out and saluted as if nothing had happened. Hero to rapist and back to hero again, all in a matter of days. Truly this is the best of all possible worlds.
David Jones, the Sky television presenter, ran through the third tier XI to continuous applause that did not rise - thankfully - or falter, even when he reached the name of the PFA member who had left Caernarfon Crown Court for a prison cell just two days previously.
'It would have drawn more attention had we pulled him out of the team,' said Bobby Barnes, the PFA's deputy chief executive. We do not condone the offence, but when the voting took place nobody had any knowledge of pending convictions. The award was based on merit. It was voted for by the players and based on his performances on the field.'
'That was a football judgment by fellow professionals,' added chief executive Gordon Taylor. 'It was not a moral judgment. If he had been removed from the team it would have created more of a storm and manipulated the vote. In no way does the PFA condone the offence for which he was convicted.'
And if football keeps saying that, perhaps we will believe it. But you know what? It did condone it, ever so slightly, because convicted rapists do not tend to receive the solace of public shows of respect and admiration from their most exalted peers.
Other peers, just 12 of them and not an Armani tux in sight, have already given their appraisal in the courtroom, in Evans' case after only four hours and 52 minutes' deliberation - and there is nothing comforting in their conclusion.
Only in football would a rapist be afforded a round of applause two days after his trial. Those must have been some really expensive brochures. So what could the PFA have done differently? For a start, they could have tried behaving like a trade union.
You know, an organisation that leans left by nature and makes decisions based on a loose set of socialist principles, rather than what will look weird on the Sky transmission.
There are female members of the PFA - England's women's team have been in since January 1, 2007, although Fulham's women were the trailblazers, admitted on turning professional in the 2000-01 season - but even now the annual Player of the Year dinner remains a male-dominated affair, eyewitnesses estimating that men accounted for between 85 and 90 per cent of the turn-out.
Maybe had there been a greater feminine presence the decision to lionise Evans would have met resistance. Maybe in a less testosterone-fuelled environment, someone might have pointed out that any decision that necessitates a follow-up statement clarifying the organisation's position on rape is probably the wrong one. Even if the proofs had been signed off at the printers, the video montage compiled and the script written, it is hard to imagine the Unite union being conflicted in similar circumstances. It is hardly political correctness to withdraw endorsement of a convicted rapist, and if a trade union cannot be politically correct, who can?
Taylor says that to overlook Evans, or withdraw him, when the evidence of his commendation was already in the brochure would have created controversy, but how so? Who exactly would have condemned the PFA for failing to give a very recently convicted rapist his moment of glory? Any war of words would have been mercifully short, with the weight of public support and sympathy behind the union.
'On the night, we felt it appropriate to leave Evans' name out of the announced team in the light of recent events. We did not wish to alter the vote, which was made prior to the trial, but firmly believe this small acknowledgement of changed circumstance was the right and responsible thing to do,' said a PFA spokesman in my fictional press release.
And who could object to such basic decency? Instead, football forged ahead, oblivious to wider sensibilities, again creating the impression that the PFA's members are not so much trade unionists as privileged beneficiaries of an exclusive club. No precedents would have been set by Evans' exclusion, no millstones tied, because this was clearly a unique event.
Instead, the sport's relationship with half the population appears more skewed than ever; as, increasingly, does the stance of the unequivocal, unquestioning modern supporter. On Tuesday, Sheffield United suspended one of Evans' team-mates, Connor Brown, for a particularly repulsive outburst on Twitter. Following the verdict, he called the victim a 'moneygrabbing tramp'. 'If u r a slag, u r a slag, don't try get money from being a slag,' he posted, semi-literately. Brown having pushed the boundaries of acceptability, the gates opened and a tidal wave of slurry poured through.
'In a Premier Inn with 2 footballers after a night out. Expecting tiddlywinks? And ruin a poor blokes life? ! #golddigger #chedevans #freeched... How can there be any evidence if the silly bitch can't remember anything... There's some birds in this pub who would defo get the #ChedEvans treatment...think. #ThereButForTheGraceOfGodGoI... If nailing a tramp who is too w****red to say no is a crime then the old bill need to get down to mine with a set of cuffs... I hope that silly tramp gets properly raped one day... #chedevans going to jail shows that women will come up with any excuse to get their 15 minutes of fame. . . #ChedEvansinocent !! #DrunkenSlag - moneygrabbing whore!!... Nobody knows facts the girl has done this before! There are now videos of her going around getting smashed by diff blokes.'
Excuse the English. It does seem like primitive code at times. Personally, I find those who quite cheerfully consider themselves rapists on the sly the most worrying social specimens, but you probably have your own favourite.
And there is more where this came from. Plenty more. Plenty of other people who think because a woman went back to a hotel with one man, she should be expecting to accommodate several, plus a camera, or that getting anonymously raped equates to an especially desperate quest for celebrity.
And she's had sex before! Well, that's just asking for it. 'Locked away for 5 years for lack of consent,' one Einstein mused, mystified. Yes, that would be the rape part. If you've got consent, it's sex. If you haven't, it's rape. It's not exactly a nuance. The girl Evans raped was drunk. So drunk she fell over in a kebab shop before agreeing to accompany another footballer, Clayton McDonald of Port Vale, back to his hotel. Evans arrived because McDonald spoke to him on a mobile telephone and announced he had 'got a bird', like he had been out trapping them with nets. Evans arrived and had sex with the girl after McDonald, while others attempted to film what happened. The vulturous McDonald was charged with rape but acquitted, Evans got five years.
We presume the jury reasoned that, despite being in an advanced state of incapability, agreeing to go to the hotel with McDonald was consent, of sorts, and she may have even initiated the one-night stand. Evans was no part of that conversation; hence his behaviour was not consensual.
Comments
I don't think there is any suggestion that Connor Brown named the victim. He called her "a slag" but I haven't seen any suggestion that what he did was illegal.
Personally I think he is a guilty as sin, but the fact MacDonald was aquitted will imho only help his appeal.
Perhaps there ought to be a law, if not against being so stupid, then at least against displaying it publicly?
Not a problem and I don't take it personally (and I hope you don't either) but I really do know what I'm talking about. Yes clever lawyers (and some stupid ones too!!) get people off. I can assure you that what is on line and in papers ALWAYS fails to reflect the totality of either the evidence or the summing up. Let's wait and see what happens if Evans gets his appeal before the Court of Appeal.
And no, it can't. Though the prosecution can appeal if they think the sentence unduly lenient. Doubtful in this case I think.
other supporters of Evens are the ones who have named her and aimed abuse online at her. that and sky news, who are saying no one could of possibly had seen it in real time...the same cooperation that has sky + where you can rewind live TV.
the sources in which i have based my information on are from the media (free press) in case anyone wanted to know.
I cannot see anything there that suggests criminal behaviour. Yet as an an employer I would be concerned nonetheless.
I guess it will, as always, come down to how good/valuable the player is? It's sad but it's true.
Dealing with the second point first, there is no automatic right of appeal. Unless the trial judge has given a certificate of appeal (highly unusual and I have read nothing that suggests he did so here) Evans will have to seek leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal. This is in writing and is decided by a single judge who may give him leave to appeal to the full court (or not.) IF I was a betting person I would think he will get leave, provided the grounds are well- crafted. If he does get leave, expect an application for bail pending appeal.
The Court of Appeal cannot increase a sentence except where on application by the Attorney General on the basis that it has been unduly lenient. The guidlines from the Sentencing Council where the victim is 16 or over, are that the starting point should be 5 years imprisonment with a range of 4-8 years which is then influenced by aggravating or mitigating factors. My expectation therefore is that the Attorney will not seek to have to refer this to the Court of Appeal as I doubt the 5 years would be considered unduly lenient. Nor do I think Evans will appeal against his sentence (or if he does that it is likely to succeed. (On a point of interest, the sentencing guideline is higher if there is 'more than one offender acting together' so Evans sentence would probably have been higher if McDonald had also been convicted.
Your comments immediately leave me with a question. If he gets the appeal, and is then granted bail would Sheff Utd play him while he is awaiting the appeal hearing which , presumably, won't be heard in a matter of days.
Gosh that chain of events would really make for some tough decisions.
Regardless, there is an ongoing investigation so we will find out one way or another soon enougj.
As to whether the appeal will succeed is another matter. Don't forget that in the first instance, the CPS must have concluded that they had a reasaonable chance of a successful prosecution before taking the matter to court.
The brochures were printed. What else could they have done? There it was, glossy as you like: Professional Footballers' Association League One team of the season, strikers Jordan Rhodes (Huddersfield Town) and Ched Evans (Sheffield United).
You can't let the small matter of a five-year rape sentence interfere with a big moment like that. And so it was that, at the Grosvenor House Hotel on Sunday, the name Ched Evans echoed across a room of football's great and good, read out and saluted as if nothing had happened. Hero to rapist and back to hero again, all in a matter of days. Truly this is the best of all possible worlds.
David Jones, the Sky television presenter, ran through the third tier XI to continuous applause that did not rise - thankfully - or falter, even when he reached the name of the PFA member who had left Caernarfon Crown Court for a prison cell just two days previously.
'It would have drawn more attention had we pulled him out of the team,' said Bobby Barnes, the PFA's deputy chief executive. We do not condone the offence, but when the voting took place nobody had any knowledge of pending convictions. The award was based on merit. It was voted for by the players and based on his performances on the field.'
'That was a football judgment by fellow professionals,' added chief executive Gordon Taylor. 'It was not a moral judgment. If he had been removed from the team it would have created more of a storm and manipulated the vote. In no way does the PFA condone the offence for which he was convicted.'
And if football keeps saying that, perhaps we will believe it. But you know what? It did condone it, ever so slightly, because convicted rapists do not tend to receive the solace of public shows of respect and admiration from their most exalted peers.
Other peers, just 12 of them and not an Armani tux in sight, have already given their appraisal in the courtroom, in Evans' case after only four hours and 52 minutes' deliberation - and there is nothing comforting in their conclusion.
Only in football would a rapist be afforded a round of applause two days after his trial. Those must have been some really expensive brochures. So what could the PFA have done differently? For a start, they could have tried behaving like a trade union.
You know, an organisation that leans left by nature and makes decisions based on a loose set of socialist principles, rather than what will look weird on the Sky transmission.
There are female members of the PFA - England's women's team have been in since January 1, 2007, although Fulham's women were the trailblazers, admitted on turning professional in the 2000-01 season - but even now the annual Player of the Year dinner remains a male-dominated affair, eyewitnesses estimating that men accounted for between 85 and 90 per cent of the turn-out.
Maybe had there been a greater feminine presence the decision to lionise Evans would have met resistance. Maybe in a less testosterone-fuelled environment, someone might have pointed out that any decision that necessitates a follow-up statement clarifying the organisation's position on rape is probably the wrong one.
Even if the proofs had been signed off at the printers, the video montage compiled and the script written, it is hard to imagine the Unite union being conflicted in similar circumstances. It is hardly political correctness to withdraw endorsement of a convicted rapist, and if a trade union cannot be politically correct, who can?
Taylor says that to overlook Evans, or withdraw him, when the evidence of his commendation was already in the brochure would have created controversy, but how so? Who exactly would have condemned the PFA for failing to give a very recently convicted rapist his moment of glory? Any war of words would have been mercifully short, with the weight of public support and sympathy behind the union.
'On the night, we felt it appropriate to leave Evans' name out of the announced team in the light of recent events. We did not wish to alter the vote, which was made prior to the trial, but firmly believe this small acknowledgement of changed circumstance was the right and responsible thing to do,' said a PFA spokesman in my fictional press release.
And who could object to such basic decency? Instead, football forged ahead, oblivious to wider sensibilities, again creating the impression that the PFA's members are not so much trade unionists as privileged beneficiaries of an exclusive club. No precedents would have been set by Evans' exclusion, no millstones tied, because this was clearly a unique event.
Instead, the sport's relationship with half the population appears more skewed than ever; as, increasingly, does the stance of the unequivocal, unquestioning modern supporter. On Tuesday, Sheffield United suspended one of Evans' team-mates, Connor Brown, for a particularly repulsive outburst on Twitter.
Following the verdict, he called the victim a 'moneygrabbing tramp'. 'If u r a slag, u r a slag, don't try get money from being a slag,' he posted, semi-literately. Brown having pushed the boundaries of acceptability, the gates opened and a tidal wave of slurry poured through.
'In a Premier Inn with 2 footballers after a night out. Expecting tiddlywinks? And ruin a poor blokes life? ! #golddigger #chedevans #freeched... How can there be any evidence if the silly bitch can't remember anything... There's some birds in this pub who would defo get the #ChedEvans treatment...think. #ThereButForTheGraceOfGodGoI... If nailing a tramp who is too w****red to say no is a crime then the old bill need to get down to mine with a set of cuffs... I hope that silly tramp gets properly raped one day... #chedevans going to jail shows that women will come up with any excuse to get their 15 minutes of fame. . . #ChedEvansinocent !! #DrunkenSlag - moneygrabbing whore!!... Nobody knows facts the girl has done this before! There are now videos of her going around getting smashed by diff blokes.'
Excuse the English. It does seem like primitive code at times. Personally, I find those who quite cheerfully consider themselves rapists on the sly the most worrying social specimens, but you probably have your own favourite.
And there is more where this came from. Plenty more. Plenty of other people who think because a woman went back to a hotel with one man, she should be expecting to accommodate several, plus a camera, or that getting anonymously raped equates to an especially desperate quest for celebrity.
And she's had sex before! Well, that's just asking for it. 'Locked away for 5 years for lack of consent,' one Einstein mused, mystified. Yes, that would be the rape part. If you've got consent, it's sex. If you haven't, it's rape. It's not exactly a nuance. The girl Evans raped was drunk. So drunk she fell over in a kebab shop before agreeing to accompany another footballer, Clayton McDonald of Port Vale, back to his hotel.
Evans arrived because McDonald spoke to him on a mobile telephone and announced he had 'got a bird', like he had been out trapping them with nets. Evans arrived and had sex with the girl after McDonald, while others attempted to film what happened. The vulturous McDonald was charged with rape but acquitted, Evans got five years.
We presume the jury reasoned that, despite being in an advanced state of incapability, agreeing to go to the hotel with McDonald was consent, of sorts, and she may have even initiated the one-night stand. Evans was no part of that conversation; hence his behaviour was not consensual.