And once again I’m compelled to write about someone and something I’d rather not, for a handful of people who don’t give a shit, and if they do, think I’ve done the topic to death.
Let me start with the inevitable caveat: if evidence comes to light that exonerates a person of a crime for which they have served a prison sentence, they deserve absolute justice. Particularly when the crime has had social and personal consequences as extreme as losing a job, or being registered a sex offender. It’s difficult to comprehend what justice may look like, but lots of money and unreserved apologies would be a fairly good start.
I’m not great at apologies, but I’d be the first in the queue, because I’ve had some sharp words to say about Ched Evans, his millionaire father-in-law (owner of Preston’s of Boltons jewelers, from whom you should never make a purchase), and his ethically repugnant mother.
There is only one thing this “new evidence” needs to do, which is to prove – definitively – that the victim was not too drunk to consent to sexual intercourse.
I’ve read the testimony in this case and I’d assume this new evidence was not part of that or any of the hateful rhetoric espoused on the Justice for Ched website, so I will keep an open mind as to the alleged evidence and quality thereof.
There are two problems I have, though:
The first is the central point. I just heard a newsreader say that, “Ched Evans has always denied the attack…” in relation to the rape for which he was convicted.
This isn’t true.
This is the biggest misnomer about the whole case…
Ched Evans does not deny the incident occurred. His problem – and the problem of a great many swathes of other people – is that they don’t know what rape is.
Ched believes that he didn’t rape the girl. And the reasons for this are numerous and complex. But it essentially boils down to this:
1. The victim was a slag.
2. I was only doing what any other man in my position would have done.
3. The feminists are abusing me and my family, because we are a target for their overarching hatred of men – this is political correctness gone mad.
Let’s take that on a point-by-point basis.
1. On the justice for Ched website there is a fairly comprehensive and robust character assassination of the victim in this case. It has no literary, legal, or indeed, ethical merit, but I imagine it appeals to the sort of people who support Ched Evans. This website includes testimony from a rape survivor who comments not only on her own case, but on the moral merits of someone who has been viewed by a jury of her peers as a victim of rape.
That is to say, someone who has been raped, has written a letter about someone else who has been raped discrediting the validity of their rape, despite a jury having ruled in their favour, in order to support a rapist.
I think publishing this sordid, abusive, dogshit should be a crime. He and they deserve five years in prison for that sort of cuntery alone.
However, this is but one of the many, many ways in which they paint the victim as a “slag”.
They move on to her behaviour after the crime. About how she allegedly said she would get financial recompense for being raped.
Because, dear readers, if someone rapes you and they are very rich and you are not very rich it is slaggy to do anything other than weep in a corner.
Although, to be fair to the Justice for Ched campaign, they’ve done pretty well at trying to make this girl weep in a corner.
This girl, about whom the family couldn’t have the dignity or self-restraint not to persecute, name and vilify on social media (the same social media the survivor is alleged to have talked about wanting to profit from her own rape on) – has a new identity and I would argue has lost significantly more than Ched as a consequence of his crime.
Let me hold my hands up here and say I don’t know what I’d want if I’d been raped. Probably fucking blood. But if I’d been raped and subsequently persecuted to the degree this girl had I’d want blood and money. Then more fucking blood.
I must be a slag too. And so must anyone wanting compensation by person or persons significantly wealthier than them after they have been subjected to heinous crimes by said wealthier persons. I won’t list all the people in the public eye who are in the process of reaching compensation claims against people and institutions wealthier than them who committed crimes against them, but Ched thinks you’re all slags.
About six months ago I saw Ched, his girlfriend and her family enter a gastro pub in Cheshire one Sunday afternoon (bizarrely, followed by his ex-teammate Shea Given although they were not sat together, Shea fans) and as I made a hasty retreat I couldn’t help but be taken by the fucking gall of that cunt who was enjoying himself, while someone he raped has been forced to move away and have limited contact with her own family.
Finally – and it’s worth noting – there is no such thing as a slag. A slag is a word devised to reduce women to their sexual desirability, a process which begins in your early teens (if you’re lucky) and never fucking ends.
You’ve got to be sexually desirable, without being sexually available.
You’ve got to be not too thin and not too fat, you’ve got to have tits and shave your body hair and smell nice and not talk too much. If you fall within these narrow limits you’ve then got to be able to converse with men in such a way as to not be haughty because if you ignore men’s catcalls and whistles you’re stuck up, or fucking love yourself, or you’re a lesbian.
You’ve got to work out a way to decline the advances of someone who finds you attractive, without offending them, regardless of the nature of those advances because otherwise you might be hurt.
You’ve got to be pleasant, but you can’t be too pleasant.
You’ve got to be attractive enough for lots of men to want to have sex with you, but not have sex with lots of men.
And now – according to this website – if you go home with someone you’ve got to accept that as your intoxication gets more potent, you’re a sexual vehicle for any friends wandering in, whom you’ve never met before, because you’re having sex with their friend.
And a slag.
2. No you weren’t. This does a tremendous disservice to men and isn’t true.
I’m not talking about his relationship.
I don’t have any close male friends who’d witness an incapacitated female having sex with their friend and rape them. I can’t say for sure, but I’m pretty confident that any man I value and trust as a friend would view the person having very drunken sex with their friend as a real person.
Not a sexual commodity.
Before the rape, even. How disrespectful is it to walk into a hotel room and see a woman you’ve never met before naked and having sex and not leave?
To walk in to the room and rape someone clearly too drunk to consent, is grotesque. It’s not normal. It’s not excusable. It’s not merely regrettable. It’s rape.
3. We don’t hate men, we hate rape and it’s only Ched and Co who think the two are interchangeable. I’d be most pissed off if I were a man, because to lump you all in with that cunt is unforgivable.
Here’s my second and final point with this “new evidence” Ched Evans appeal. I’m highly skeptical about why it is a multi-millionaire would want to so vehemently protect and support a man who, even if you don’t know what rape is, has been unfaithful to your child. I’m not sure what prompts someone to support an individual that honest, hardworking people the length and breadth of the country have identified to have raped and further persecuted a woman to unfathomable degrees.
But if you’re prepared to pay someone else’s astronomical wages just for the privilege of saying your son-in-law’s a footballer, there’s a fuckload of ego and cash involved.
It’s precisely this cash, and the cash in football, that makes me extremely fearful that this “new evidence” which I do not believe can conclusively prove the victim wasn’t too drunk to consent, will result in a quashed conviction as the chance of him receiving a second trial are much slimmer. I’ve always felt that Ched will play professional football again, because of money.
I’ve revealed more than I wanted to about the girl who was raped in this blog. I have also repeated some things I’ve said in a previous blog. I apologise for both of those things.
But the reason I have is that I predict that this new evidence will focus more on the “quality” and “integrity” of the survivor. Which has formed the crux of this case. Her actions before, after and during the rape matter not one jot if Ched had penetrative intercourse with a stranger who was too drunk to consent.
Slags aren’t real. Rapists are.