I think the general sentencing principles in this nation are a joke.
I assume that you have followed the discussions of the Sentencing Council in detail then? Perhaps you have contributed? If not then you should do so! http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/ What is interesting is that when members of the public do get involved in sentencing exercises (rather than forums) they actually under-sentence.
I do not envy any judge who has to carry out sentencing. How can you equate an offence of violence with fraud involving millions of pounds? It is impossible.
I do not envy judges in the slightest. I know a fair bit about it all as my dad is a lawyer. I know how limited the judges often are in what they can pass as a tariff. I would however say that we definitely put too high a punishment on financial crime in comparison to crimes against the person. For example, remember the canoe guy? Darwin I think was his name. 6 years wasn't it?
In the 8 year case it was manslaughter not murder.
A guy got 13 years the other day for embezzling a load of money off a Nigerian nation...
I think the general sentencing principles in this nation are a joke.
You could kill someone and rape someone and get the same amount of time as embezzlement in this country...
agreed, the courts regard property as far more important than people .. and as for the manslaughter; part of the definition of 'murder' is that if one strikes another with the INTENT to commit gbh, and the victim dies, then that is murder .. the charge and/or verdict in that case appears to be more politically than legally motivated. I doubt if the perpetrator struck the dead old man with the intent of passing on fraternal love.
And I agree. To me it looked like murder as is defined in the law. Must have had a pretty good defence counsel.
But if she is in no fit state to consent to either, then they are both guilty...period.
My point is that to conclude there is evidence beyond all reasonable doubt is absurd (once as above you've as a jury agreed she was fit to consent to sex with someone.)
What I am hearing from this is that she willingly went in a taxi with McDonald and Evans turned up later in the room. Maybe, earlier in the evening she was more sober so she knew what she was doing, hence the involvement with MD. By the time Evans turned up in the room she was pretty plastered so she just didn't know what was going on. It's quite simple to see how the two circumstances could be very different. The jury appeared to make their decision quickly. I would think it was pretty clear cut.
So are they can cancel out all his goals this season then or what?
Nice try PS. Lets cancel the points they won when he scored. We would be champions already.
Joking aside. Many of the players these days think they are above the law because of the money they earn, their popularity and in some cases they think they are god's gift to women.
Evans will get over it. After all its a shag with some drunk tart. Forget it!! The girl on the other hand must feel ashamed and humiliated and will remember it for the rest of her life.
Enjoy your time in prison Ched you will make someone a lovely wife. I hear poxed up Pete in D Wing is looking for a new partner. Have fun
It says even more about the lack of morals of the man that he seemed to carry on playing football unaffected by the crime he committed.
Yeah this totally.
IMO even with just the basic outline of the case/charges you didn't need to be Einstein to know that something rotten had taken place....and yet it didn't seem to affect Evan's play or indeed his club's stance on the issue one iota...and of course their fans cheered every goal this `bloke' scored with complete disregard to the whole thing. Infact their backing for the player just solidified all the more on the back of it. Disgusting, disgraceful and shameful behaviour by of course the player himself, his club and the vast majority of it's supporters.
He was a completely innocent man up until this afternoon, Sheffield United have done nothing wrong.
I disagree but can see where you're coming from. He may well have been an `innocent' man up until this afternoon in the eyes of the law but it turned out he was `guilty' man who just hadn't had it confirmed yet. Given the seriousness of the charges and as I said previously, the basic outline of events surrounding those charges, I think the club would have been better served distancing themselves from the player until a conclusion was reached. He could have been suspended or sent on gardening leave or whatever. From a moral position I don't think the club has done itself any favours what-so-ever supporting him but from a playing viewpoint they've come up trumps with his goal scoring exploits this term. They of course will cling to the `innocent until proven...' stance they took but they know it was a high risk strategy given the severity of the case/charges and dreadful background story.
It's obviously HUGELY more serious an episode but it's similar in some aspects to Liverpool FC's unflinching support for Suarez in their recent race case. A bad call imo.
none of us were at the trial so we only know what was reported in the papers., which is not always all the complete facts . ( ie Ian Huntley was NOT the school caretaker where those 2 girls he murdered went).
If the jury made up their minds that quickly the evidence must have been quite compelling
Most people would have been suspended from their jobs prior to going to court and given the seriousness of this case should SUFC done so.
After all they seem to always claim the moral high grond
Did someone say the other guy belled Evans to let him know the girl was "available" thereby pre=empting what was likely to follow. Would like to think there was an appropriate charge to cover this rather unsavoury aspect. Seems he did his bit, gives his pal the heads up then turns the other cheek and walks off scott free Looking forward to hearing the summing up
So are they can cancel out all his goals this season then or what?
Joking aside. Many of the players these days think they are above the law because of the money they earn, their popularity and in some cases they think they are god's gift to women.
He's an ugly welsh bloke who plays for Sheffield United - if he thinks he is popular or god's gift to anything then he is more of a scum bag than we thought.
It's not just Evans who seemed to forget about his court case while playing. From Wikipedia :
'Following an incident near a Leeds nightclub...Bowyer was generally recognised as playing some of the finest football of his career during this period and would often go straight from court to play for Leeds'
Maybe it was a break from thinking about it. Or maybe they are both amoral.
Just to note that if the CPS think the sentence is 'unduly lenient' they can ask the Attorney General to refer it to the Court of Appeal which can increase it. It will be interesting to see if they take that course (they have 14 days so we will know before the season ends whether such application will be made.)
Didn't realise we had so many legal experts on here with a detailed knowledge of criminal the law and the specifics of this particular case. The public gallery must've been packed.
I suspect any professional e.g doctor, solicitor, accountant, teacher etc. would have been shown the door by their employee once the conviction was delivered and would have probaly been suspended from work once charges had been laid. I fail to see why professional footballers, with comparable salaries and who are in the public eye and often act as role models for youngsters, should be treated more leniently.
To convict one and not the other implies she WAS in a fit state to consent (else they would BOTH have had to have been guilty). However it is possible to have had no memory of the evening but to have been capable of consenting (or not consenting) at the time.
However her lack of memory meant she could provide no recollection of the events at the hotel so by definition, the jury must have reached their conclusion on Evans based upon other evidence heard.
Having followed the case, I find this an odd outcome (and a troubling one).
Confusing is the word, as NYA says. Think the truth will come out, but 5 years (2 1/2 probably) isn't strong enough.
He was taken away in a prison van to start his sentence,
But according to a report on sky sports he will only serve two and half years ,that apparently was said by the judge
I assume the judge said he would serve a minimum of two and a half years ?
He would serve the 2 and a half years and be on his was home but he will start off in Cat a or b prison and assuming he behaves himself then he will probably get moved to a Cat c
He will not be serving his sentence say in the scrubs or parkhurst
I suspect any professional e.g doctor, solicitor, accountant, teacher etc. would have been shown the door by their employee once the conviction was delivered and would have probaly been suspended from work once charges had been laid. I fail to see why professional footballers, with comparable salaries and who are in the public eye and often act as role models for youngsters, should be treated more leniently.
First, I do agree with the sentiment but we all know that good footballers are quite an expensive commodity these days so it isn't really that comparable with someone in a "normal" profession, from an ethical standpoint that is another question.
Second (and slightly off topic) with regards to the role model aspect. Are footballers really role models? I think for most of us growing up we would have given anything to have been a professional footballer but given the amount of negative press in recent times do young people still look up to the majority of them? They are probably on par with other so called celebrities from reality TV but on on the other hand given the fascination with anyone who can get in a paper and make a living out of it then it probably isn't such a surprise that what they do on the pitch isn't as much as an incentive as it used to be. I've probably answered my own question here.
Reading all the comments here, it still doesn't make sense, so am awaiting the written judgement which will hopefully clarrify a few issues.
She had sex with 2 strangers, one of which was convicted the other not. The judge says she wasn't in a state to agree to sex, yet only one is convicted.
If she was a completely innocent victim, then both took advantage of her and should be locked up. By letting one off, then this implies she was sober and with it enough to consent to sex with one of them? Was she plied with drink or drugs between the consent and Evans having sex with her, as this wasn't mentioned? If she agreed to have sex with one but not the other, then it's one person's word against another's, situations which are notoriously hard to prove either way, so there must be some persuasive factual evidence against Evans?
Comments
And I agree. To me it looked like murder as is defined in the law. Must have had a pretty good defence counsel.
Joking aside. Many of the players these days think they are above the law because of the money they earn, their popularity and in some cases they think they are god's gift to women.
Evans will get over it. After all its a shag with some drunk tart. Forget it!!
The girl on the other hand must feel ashamed and humiliated and will remember it for the rest of her life.
Enjoy your time in prison Ched you will make someone a lovely wife. I hear poxed up Pete in D Wing is looking for a new partner. Have fun
But according to a report on sky sports he will only serve two and half years ,that apparently was said by the judge
Given the seriousness of the charges and as I said previously, the basic outline of events surrounding those charges, I think the club would have been better served distancing themselves from the player until a conclusion was reached. He could have been suspended or sent on gardening leave or whatever.
From a moral position I don't think the club has done itself any favours what-so-ever supporting him but from a playing viewpoint they've come up trumps with his goal scoring exploits this term.
They of course will cling to the `innocent until proven...' stance they took but they know it was a high risk strategy given the severity of the case/charges and dreadful background story.
It's obviously HUGELY more serious an episode but it's similar in some aspects to Liverpool FC's unflinching support for Suarez in their recent race case. A bad call imo.
If Evans didn't want the time off to fight the charges then in my opinon they had to let him play, until today.
If the jury made up their minds that quickly the evidence must have been quite compelling
Most people would have been suspended from their jobs prior to going to court and given the seriousness of this case should SUFC done so.
After all they seem to always claim the moral high grond
Would like to think there was an appropriate charge to cover this rather unsavoury aspect.
Seems he did his bit, gives his pal the heads up then turns the other cheek and walks off scott free
Looking forward to hearing the summing up
'Following an incident near a Leeds nightclub...Bowyer was generally recognised as playing some of the finest football of his career during this period and would often go straight from court to play for Leeds'
Maybe it was a break from thinking about it. Or maybe they are both amoral.
Think the truth will come out, but 5 years (2 1/2 probably) isn't strong enough.
He will not be serving his sentence say in the scrubs or parkhurst
Second (and slightly off topic) with regards to the role model aspect. Are footballers really role models? I think for most of us growing up we would have given anything to have been a professional footballer but given the amount of negative press in recent times do young people still look up to the majority of them? They are probably on par with other so called celebrities from reality TV but on on the other hand given the fascination with anyone who can get in a paper and make a living out of it then it probably isn't such a surprise that what they do on the pitch isn't as much as an incentive as it used to be. I've probably answered my own question here.
If as found guilty of doing what he has done after an appeal which will come he deserves never to walk the same streets as normal folks
Scum rape people and at the moment he is scum
She had sex with 2 strangers, one of which was convicted the other not. The judge says she wasn't in a state to agree to sex, yet only one is convicted.
If she was a completely innocent victim, then both took advantage of her and should be locked up. By letting one off, then this implies she was sober and with it enough to consent to sex with one of them? Was she plied with drink or drugs between the consent and Evans having sex with her, as this wasn't mentioned? If she agreed to have sex with one but not the other, then it's one person's word against another's, situations which are notoriously hard to prove either way, so there must be some persuasive factual evidence against Evans?
Why the fuck would you put yourself in the position??? Not long ago he was at Man City so he would have had some sort of idea what is in store for him
Put yourself in the (at the time) 2nd tier footballers shoes
A mate phones you up
He offers you a twosies
You have nothing else to do
You say 'yep, I'm up for some of that'
You go to the house/hotel/whatever
You see the young lady sprawled about, your mate says 'crack on, I've had my go'
You do, she says 'no, get off me' (I'm just building a picture, bear with me and fill in the gaps)
You don't
You're on the blades books, why would you, shes only a daft Welsh slut who wants to fuck footballers
You're CHED EVANS, you are invincible, no doris is gonna drop me in the shit, I do what I want