Ched Evans ought not to give interviews. They do him no good.
Evans was an obnoxious very young man with a lot of money and, as we can see from his effusions today, very little intellect.
But a marked improvement in his attitude to women could have happened anyway between the ages of 22 and 27.
And he simply was not a rapist.
More than anything, he was one of the last category of working-class men to be paid much at all, and in fact to be paid a very great deal more than CPS solicitors, or even newspaper columnists.
That, more than anything, was what they had, and have, against him.
Moreover, does anyone seriously believe that a person's sexual history is wholly immaterial to whether or not he or she may have consented to sex?
Are we seriously expected to believe that Evans's accuser was precisely as likely or unlikely to consent to sex as was, during her earthly life, Saint Teresa of Calcutta?
No, and the jury did not buy that, either.
Are we seriously expected to believe that Evans's accuser was precisely as likely or unlikely to consent to sex as was, during her earthly life, Saint Teresa of Calcutta?
ReplyDeleteAre we seriously expected to believe that a woman who has willingly slept with different people in her past couldn't possibly be raped?
It's not far off saying "she was asking for it" or that she bears some responsibility she was after all wearing "provocative clothing."
Prostitutes and promiscuous women are often far more vulnerable to rape than others.
Sexual history should be irrelevant unless you believe that only chaste nuns ever get raped.
You've tried that one, and you lost.
DeleteThis is the end of the CPS. In order to bring down football, of which I am not a fan, it literally fabricated a "case" from scratch. All because it objected to the idea that working-class men should be paid, well, anything at all.
Evans may be just ghastly. He is just ghastly. But his acquittal is a watershed moment.