Ched Evans saga part ???
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Littlebogreek  14 Oct 16 4.07pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by paperhat
and of course he's the only footballer to ever do it. Or indeed person - personally, I think its an incredibly selfish thing to do to your partner, male or female, and an example of the level of someone's maturity - the impact of such thing to the wounded party isn't measurable. That said, as many on here have said, it isn't a crime and undoubtably is something that many others at the club have done or similar - the guy has been found not guilty, therefore should be free to continue his career without prejudice. Still wouldn't want the vile prick at Palace though.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
paperhat  croydon 14 Oct 16 4.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Littlebogreek
That said, as many on here have said, it isn't a crime and undoubtably is something that many others at the club have done or similar - the guy has been found not guilty, therefore should be free to continue his career without prejudice. Still wouldn't want the vile prick at Palace though. don't get me wrong, I kinda don't have a view either way but then if we are to start saying "well, he cant play for us cos he cheated on his Mrs" etc, where does one draw the line at what is and isn't acceptable? What if the club turned round and said, "we don't want anyone with a criminal record coming to our stadium to watch our team"? - crazy but along the same lines as picking and choosing who doesn't play for them. I'd guess it'd be pretty hard for the guy getting a dogs abuse day in day out from opposing fans (as he does and will continue to do so), let the guy play wherever he's 'wanted' and let him get on with the decisions he's made in life
Clinton is Clinton. I have known him for a long time, I know his mother... Simon Jordan |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Y Ddraig Goch  In The Crowd 14 Oct 16 4.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
For those interested in the legal aspect and have Twitter, the Secret Barrister is worth a look [Tweet Link]
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 14 Oct 16 4.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
I don't think he was ever going to be convicted this time round as the prosecution couldn't offer any evidence beyond that which led to the original conviction being quashed. It shows the police and particularly the CPS in a very bad light, though. Perhaps they'll be a little less sensitive to the shrieks of wimmin and other assorted f*ckwits next time. The guy clearly has the morals of an alley cat but that ain't a crime. Yet. There is nothing wrong with the original case - the new evidence is sufficient to cast reasonable doubt, and thus a not guilty verdict. They had a good case, got a conviction. That's how the system is supposed to work. Then the defence found two new witnesses who cast doubt on the prosecutions reliability, and he was acquitted.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 14 Oct 16 4.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch
I know he is playing now but look how long that took. A few clubs may be willing to take a chance on him but not so sure they will. He was starting to come good as a player but that development stopped dead in its tracks when he was sent down. He is unlikely to "make it" now. A Big Brother contestant in the making Edited by Y Ddraig Goch (14 Oct 2016 3.27pm) Most of that time though was the defence finding those witnesses and presenting that evidence to get a retrial - not an acquittal.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| sickboy Deal or Croydon 14 Oct 16 5.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch
For those interested in the legal aspect and have Twitter, the Secret Barrister is worth a look [Tweet Link]
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Midlands Eagle 14 Oct 16 5.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Littlebogreek
it isn't a crime and undoubtably is something that many others at the club have done or similar - the guy has been found not guilty, therefore should be free to continue his career without prejudice. Still wouldn't want the vile prick at Palace though. But you are happy with a manager who assaults opposition players and allegedly shags his players' wives?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Kingvagabond London 14 Oct 16 9.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Personally, I'm delighted in the acquittal. Not because I like ched Evans. Frankly I think the bloke was/is a scumbag and that his actions were entirely morally reprehensible. My reason for being delighted is that it was an unsafe conviction that created a dangerous precedent in law. The complainant never accused Evans or the other one of rape. She went to the police because she got drunk off her face, woke up in her own piss in a strange place and couldn't remember a thing. I can understand her wanting to know what happened and worrying about it. For me, the police pushed for the arrests and the CPS pushed for the convictions because of who the defendants were. The jury convicted because they felt Ched Evans, Donaldson and footballers generally are scumbags and it was behaviour that warranted being made an example of. I'm sure Jamie will disagree and I vastly suspect he knows a lot more about legality than I but having reviewed as much of the case as was available to me (easily) than it's my opinion and given that our legal system is based on precedent, that is why I feel it was dangerous.
Part of Holmesdale Radio: The Next Generation Quote cornwalls palace at 24 Oct 2012 9.37am He was right!!!...and we killed him!!... poor Orpinton Eagles........ |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Dan1994 Wallington 14 Oct 16 10.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
To be honest, this entire case has been a f*** up from start to finish, and the drama that has trailed with it has made me consider my feelings towards the rest of the population. Firstly, there were so many cock-ups and underhand things going on on both sides of the trial: her allegedly being two and a half times over the limit (BBC) and her allegedly saying no when McDonald asked her, but on the other side, the use of her sexual history and the "reward" offered by Evans' missus is a bit dodgy in my opinion. Secondly, the reaction by both sides has also disgusted me: the vast amounts of disgusting comments towards the victim (who allegedly didn't even call the incident rape). Again, on the other side, even though I am left-wing, the amount of t***s on that side angers me to no end. Gonna disable my facebook and twitter, and go to the Winchester, have a nice cold pint, and wait for this all to blow over.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 14 Oct 16 10.20pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
There is nothing wrong with the original case - the new evidence is sufficient to cast reasonable doubt, and thus a not guilty verdict. They had a good case, got a conviction. That's how the system is supposed to work. Then the defence found two new witnesses who cast doubt on the prosecutions reliability, and he was acquitted. I completely disagree with you that 'There is nothing wrong with the original case'. Jamie, I say this with respect, but you went and accepted evidence about intoxication that was debatable. The fresh evidence completely shows that. Besides anyone who had spent significant time in a nightclub and taken notice of what goes on would have known that the certainty being offered about the intoxication was iffy indeed. It wasn't reasonable evidence to ruin a man's life on. The fresh evidence that came to light could very well never have seen the light of day...... and many people would be continuing to demonise and ruin this man. Edited by Stirlingsays (14 Oct 2016 10.21pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hoof Hearted 15 Oct 16 10.29am | |
|---|---|
|
People put too much stock in the verdicts delivered in debatable cases like these. At the end of the day 12 people's opinions decided the first trial and 12 people's opinions decided the latest trial. For me it was always her word against his and in the first trial he was unable to show her version of events as being unsafe. The two new witnesses showed her up to be a regular p1ssed up party girl well up for a threesome with celebrities. Ched Evans was stupid to have got involved but didn't deserve to have his career taken away by a lying welsh slapper. I doubt that she will now be made accountable for this mess either.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 15 Oct 16 3.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I completely disagree with you that 'There is nothing wrong with the original case'. Jamie, I say this with respect, but you went and accepted evidence about intoxication that was debatable. The fresh evidence completely shows that. Besides anyone who had spent significant time in a nightclub and taken notice of what goes on would have known that the certainty being offered about the intoxication was iffy indeed. It wasn't reasonable evidence to ruin a man's life on. The fresh evidence that came to light could very well never have seen the light of day...... and many people would be continuing to demonise and ruin this man. Edited by Stirlingsays (14 Oct 2016 10.21pm) The defence didnt disprove her intoxication. It demonstrated it was reasonable for evans to believe he had consent by corrorboating his account of events in the room. People seem to miss this in a rush to get their opinion of what is and isnt rape across, or to indulge in some good old fashoned victim blaming. She was raped, the problem is neither of the defendents were her rapists. An odd paradox of law
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.