Still doesnt excuse the behaviour.
Not saying it does - just saying that "the behaviour" may be over-stated by the rag, "quoting" a friend of the victim.
According to the Guardian it is pretty clear that it was in fact rape and if the court indeed has found it is such, which it has, then no matter personal opinion, he is guilty. Not saying the court is infallible, but according to the few facts I gathered, there's really no question on that matter.
The way people act when it comes down to rape is so unapologetic, so amazing frustrating and really shows the worst side of human behaviour. Because its a public figure that no one can probably see as doing something wrong, they go into complete denial.
I come back full circle to my first statement. I hate people.
I happen to hate hyperbole.
What the rag said was that Evans "lured" the young woman back to his hotel room and assaulted her. That is not - by evidence produced at the trial - what happened. According to that:
Evans' rented a room at the local hotel for his friend, a player from another club - because there was no room for the man to stay at Evans' mother's home and presumably because he was making more money than the friend and could better afford to pay the hotel charge.
The friend went to a local bar, where he met the young woman - who admitted that she had been drinking prior to meeting him and continued to drink afterward. By her admission, she regularly drank to excess, but swore that it never caused her to lose consciousness.
At that point, the story diverges. The young woman said she didn't remember anything until she woke up the next morning.
The friend said he asked the girl back to his hotel room and she agreed to go.
The friend said he called Evans and another man to join them to continue the "party".
Evans came to the room - the third man apparently watched through a window or some nonsense - why I do not know.
Evans and the friend engaged in sex with the young woman.
The young woman pressed charges against both men. The prosecutor decided that there was not enough evidence to suggest that the sex with the friend was not consensual, but there was enough evidence of non-consent to charge Evans with rape.
He was convicted.
I'm not going to beat that to death with a stick. That was the decision that a jury of his peers decided. I wasn't in the courtroom. If they believe he was guilty, I accept their judgement.
Personally, I also believe the other man was equally guilty, as there is no way of knowing if the young woman actually agreed to have sex with him since she says she remember nothing; but that's not what was decided.
What I do NOT agree with is a newspaper
printing a statement that is patently untrue. Some people may be comfortable with that, arguing that since Evans was found guilty it makes no difference if the press makes crap up.
I am not comfortable with that.
I initially used the word 'overstated' to avoid the word 'untrue' - but what they wrote was a lie. Evans was not at the bar and did not - in ANY way - "lure" the girl back to his hotel room. It was not "his" room and she was already in the room when he arrived. That doesn't change what happened in the room - but to make a statement like that does change the circumstances in a way that takes Evans from a stupid young man who committed a crime, taking advantage of a very drunk or semi-conscious young woman, to a pathologically evil Svengali who set out to debauch an innocent.
Words have meaning and when a newspaper uses them for emotional effect rather than in a quest for accuracy, they are committing a far worse crime than just a turn of phrase. If they will print a lie, what lie will they not print? If they lie in one paragraph of a story, why should I believe that they are telling the truth in a different paragraph?
You go ahead and "hate people" - I will continue to despise the things that people do - and that includes the press.