mrmojorisin75

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area. There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison. That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted. Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team. It is a grey area though as rape, in this way, isn't exactly a single identifiable action. It's not like being caught on CCTV walking into ASDA and walking out with a TV. There's a lot more to it than that. I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just uneasy about saying he's 100% guilty because that's the verdict that was given. The important point is that - by the definition of rape enshrined in the law - what Evans committed was rape. If people want to suspect he might not be guilty - and one assumes these people have read all the court proceedings and know all the details about the case in order to be able to make that decision - then that is up to him, but to suggest there is some sort of grey area around his conviction is blatantly not true. Thinking that something (ie what Evans did) isn't as bad as the law sees it is one thing, but to suggest there's any legal lack of clarity is fundamentally untrue. Really? What on earth do you mean by that? He's a judge sitting in a court of law, expressing how he saw Evans' actions in the frame of what the law is. That's his job. The jury were expressing their interpretation of how what Evans did should be interpreted. That's why Evans was found guilty. if you are going to cast doubt on the outcome of a trial because it involves a judge's "interpretation" of the law, then you're going to find yourself at odds with the entire legal framework which lies at the root of modern democracy. The judge's comments indicate that his verdict has come down to individual opinion. Obviously there was more to it than that, but he specifically uses the CCTV footage in his sentencing remarks and emphasises that it's in fact just an opinion. The jury would have had there own opinions too, which apparently matched the judges. It's still an opinion though, "was she drunk enough to consent going by this CCTV footage?" read that thing ED209 just posted wrt the judge's summing up hans, if you've not done so already

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area. There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison. That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted. Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team. It is a grey area though as rape, in this way, isn't exactly a single identifiable action. It's not like being caught on CCTV walking into ASDA and walking out with a TV. There's a lot more to it than that. I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just uneasy about saying he's 100% guilty because that's the verdict that was given. The important point is that - by the definition of rape enshrined in the law - what Evans committed was rape. If people want to suspect he might not be guilty - and one assumes these people have read all the court proceedings and know all the details about the case in order to be able to make that decision - then that is up to him, but to suggest there is some sort of grey area around his conviction is blatantly not true. Thinking that something (ie what Evans did) isn't as bad as the law sees it is one thing, but to suggest there's any legal lack of clarity is fundamentally untrue. Really? What on earth do you mean by that? He's a judge sitting in a court of law, expressing how he saw Evans' actions in the frame of what the law is. That's his job. The jury were expressing their interpretation of how what Evans did should be interpreted. That's why Evans was found guilty. if you are going to cast doubt on the outcome of a trial because it involves a judge's "interpretation" of the law, then you're going to find yourself at odds with the entire legal framework which lies at the root of modern democracy. he's not interpreting the law there, he's interpreting CCTV footage and deciding that someone stumbling cannot legally consent to sex when i believe expert testimony said otherwise I've seen cctv of her going into the hotel and going back outside to pick up a pizza in high heels and she wasn't stumbling at all. yep same aye

ah this was the thing i read about the judge's summing up influencing the jury aye

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area. There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison. That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted. Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team. It is a grey area though as rape, in this way, isn't exactly a single identifiable action. It's not like being caught on CCTV walking into ASDA and walking out with a TV. There's a lot more to it than that. I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just uneasy about saying he's 100% guilty because that's the verdict that was given. The important point is that - by the definition of rape enshrined in the law - what Evans committed was rape. If people want to suspect he might not be guilty - and one assumes these people have read all the court proceedings and know all the details about the case in order to be able to make that decision - then that is up to him, but to suggest there is some sort of grey area around his conviction is blatantly not true. Thinking that something (ie what Evans did) isn't as bad as the law sees it is one thing, but to suggest there's any legal lack of clarity is fundamentally untrue. Really? What on earth do you mean by that? He's a judge sitting in a court of law, expressing how he saw Evans' actions in the frame of what the law is. That's his job. The jury were expressing their interpretation of how what Evans did should be interpreted. That's why Evans was found guilty. if you are going to cast doubt on the outcome of a trial because it involves a judge's "interpretation" of the law, then you're going to find yourself at odds with the entire legal framework which lies at the root of modern democracy. he's not interpreting the law there, he's interpreting CCTV footage and deciding that someone stumbling cannot legally consent to sex when i believe expert testimony said otherwise

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area. There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison. That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted. Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team. It is a grey area though as rape, in this way, isn't exactly a single identifiable action. It's not like being caught on CCTV walking into ASDA and walking out with a TV. There's a lot more to it than that. I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just uneasy about saying he's 100% guilty because that's the verdict that was given. The important point is that - by the definition of rape enshrined in the law - what Evans committed was rape. If people want to suspect he might not be guilty - and one assumes these people have read all the court proceedings and know all the details about the case in order to be able to make that decision - then that is up to him, but to suggest there is some sort of grey area around his conviction is blatantly not true. Thinking that something (ie what Evans did) isn't as bad as the law sees it is one thing, but to suggest there's any legal lack of clarity is fundamentally untrue. Really? i remember reading a link to some transcript stuff and the judge's opinion weighed heavily like, i'm sure he as good as told the jury to ignore testimony from an expert witness that would have meant evans wasn't convicted - he was an intoxication expert or something like that and basically said she would have been able to consent

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area. There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison. That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted. Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team. It is a grey area though as rape, in this way, isn't exactly a single identifiable action. It's not like being caught on CCTV walking into ASDA and walking out with a tele. There's a lot more to it than that. I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just uneasy about saying he's 100% guilty because that's the verdict that was given. unless evan's people are responsible for making up loads of shit that didn't happen and spinning it as the truth without anyone taking them to task for it there's a lot to question about the conviction imho - in effect he's gone down because a jury, heavily influenced by the judge at the time iirc, have decided that the lass was too drunk to consent, not that she didn't consent mind you...in fact the porter fella heard her actively participating in the act (again iirc) so unless i'm missing something he wasn't sent down on hard evidence at all, the lass said she can't remember, no-one can prove otherwise and a subjective decision has been made to say he raped her when witness testimony suggests it wasn't forced and was indeed consented to at the time if there's nothing grey about that then jesus all of this is said with the proviso there may be evidence i've not read or heard about etc.

It hasn't finished yet, no. Although I'm not really sure what difference it makes, given that we don't know what it'll say. no difference to this, i was just wondering

i assume the review referred to here has not been knocked back yet and is still pending? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29679563

But that's the important point. He's a convicted rapist. End of. Until evidence surfaces to change that, he is going to remain one. It is retinue's refusal to stop acting like this is not true which has made the situation worse. That is why he is struggling to get back into football, because people don't really want to be associating with the likes of Ched Evans. How can a football club do things like community activism, do good work outside the actual football (and a lot of them do) if people can point at them and say "look at the sort of person you employ"? i'm not getting into it, it's been done before so there's no point

they are allowed, but they're clearly massively open to abuse and keeping evans out of football has become a thing in itself now imho - if it was a poll of genuine supporters who were always knocking him back then aye fine but it's clearly not assuming those 4k/20k oldham petition numbers are correct it's just nonsense I see your point here but I think you need to look at the repercussions of him getting back into football. Parents, regardless of whether they like football or not, will want to sign the petition if they have kids who like football. so it's think of the children now? i'll not agree he should be blocked from playing if clubs want him to play for them, which they obviously do He isn't blocked from returning to football, though. That's a pretty important point. Clubs are not signing him because the fans or sponsors - or both - do not want to see their club associated with someone like him. That's entirely understandable, but it is not the same thing as being "blocked" from playing, which implies some form of legal restriction. yes not legally blocked obviously, he's being effectively blocked due to the ongoing campaign against him whenever anyone goes near him as for the bolded part i don't believe for a second any of the sponsors are reacting on moral grounds due to 'association with' ched fucking evans like, they're reacting because they feel they have to when 20,000 mouth breathers sign an online petition through fear of loss of potential money same for the clubs, this is not a moral issue anymore it's basically a question of whether a club will call the bluff of online petitions etc. and sponsors bending over for them as for the "he's been found guilty that's it" argument i don't know where to start, so i'm not going to

they are allowed, but they're clearly massively open to abuse and keeping evans out of football has become a thing in itself now imho - if it was a poll of genuine supporters who were always knocking him back then aye fine but it's clearly not assuming those 4k/20k oldham petition numbers are correct it's just nonsense I see your point here but I think you need to look at the repercussions of him getting back into football. Parents, regardless of whether they like football or not, will want to sign the petition if they have kids who like football. so it's think of the children now? i'll not agree he should be blocked from playing if clubs want him to play for them, which they obviously do

the fuck? is this supposed to be real?

they are allowed, but they're clearly massively open to abuse and keeping evans out of football has become a thing in itself now imho - if it was a poll of genuine supporters who were always knocking him back then aye fine but it's clearly not assuming those 4k/20k oldham petition numbers are correct it's just nonsense

Arthur Cox was manager of Chesterfield before he became our manager and Kevin Keegan had spent 8 years on the golf course on the Costa Del Sol and had no managerial experience whatsoever when he became our manager. KK even admitted that he'd been out of the game for so long he had to spend time learning about the game again and finding out who he knew who was still in the game and could trust. Everyone has to start somewhere and not every top manager starts at the top either. you're talking about taking the guy from exeter and putting him in charge of a club that is in the top 20 (still?) in europe man* the examples are not comparable wonder if arsenal will be taking the manager from TNS to replace wenger when he goes? that said you're right in principle aye

I don't even see this as a joke. It's exactly what he should do. He had a great opportunity, he f***ed it up. Be thankful to be out of prison and put in a shift at a normal, profileless job. He, along with all people released from prison, might as well just go and jump off a bridge based on your logic. Why doesn't he just settle for a life on the dole taking taxpayer's money if he's only allowed to apply for perceived shit jobs. He has a right to seek employment in any area he chooses. If clubs won't employ him then he will have to look somewhere else, fair enough. This is the point. He's not in a position to be fussy and there is no entitlement. Football has no obligation to take him back and he should be more than happy to work at a 'shit' job. He needs to accept he screwed up his career and it's over. I agree with you that football has no obligation to take him back. But if a club chooses to offer him a deal, they should not be met with online petitions, sponsor boycotts and politicians deriding them for doing so. fucking finally

I don't even see this as a joke. It's exactly what he should do. He had a great opportunity, he f***ed it up. Be thankful to be out of prison and put in a shift at a normal, profileless job. He, along with all people released from prison, might as well just go and jump off a bridge based on your logic. Why doesn't he just settle for a life on the dole taking taxpayer's money if he's only allowed to apply for perceived shit jobs. He has a right to seek employment in any area he chooses. If clubs won't employ him then he will have to look somewhere else, fair enough. This is the point. He's not in a position to be fussy and there is no entitlement. Football has no obligation to take him back and he should be more than happy to work at a 'shit' job. He needs to accept he screwed up his career and it's over. this is the issue, clubs clearly do want to employ the man but are being 'forced' not to do so as him going back to football has become such a huge thing in itself when it needn't have been

eh, what legal right? Yes he is legally allowed, but this is not the same as a right. I'm fairly sure that I'd find it near impossible to get back in to my field of work if I were a convicted rapist, and I'm not even in the public eye. Yes I think he should be allowed to work, no I do not believe that he has a right to be paid footballer, that's a privilege not a right. I don't believe for one second that Oldham would be so interested in signing him if it were not for the fact he is far better than anyone else they could normally afford; amazing value for money because his reputation is so damaged. He has a legal right to seek employment in whatever field he so chooses. The only reason he's not already playing football again is due to the pressure being exerted on clubs that would otherwise have signed him ages back.

I don't even see this as a joke. It's exactly what he should do. He had a great opportunity, he f***ed it up. Be thankful to be out of prison and put in a shift at a normal, profileless job. I do not agree with you.

Kids fucked, might as well give up now and see if Asda will take him stacking shelves

Statistically their most successful manager in History. Oh well then, in that case I'm in. Win percentage of 36.9% I'm back out then

Statistically their most successful manager in History. Oh well then, in that case I'm in.

Exeter's manager

I think we could easy get De Boer like but in reality it will be a way to get ST sales aye. If they want him no reason they can't agree the deal now for the summer, if they don't its all bullshit.

Didn't realise that about McCormick. Ugh. That's much worse than this. Generally agree with your post. Not of particular relevance to Evans himself but I can't stand this line of "he has to be allowed to work again and football is his job." Cool, we'll just let rapist police officers back into uniform when they get out in that case. I can't stand the idea that he's (was) being prevented from taking up his chosen profession by mouthpieces and keyboard warriors. Don't kid yourself, plenty of clubs would have taken him ages ago for football reasons but were simply scared to do for fear of the backlash. He doesn't "have" to be allowed back to football but he has a legal right to do it and presumably has something to offer on the pitch so clubs should be free to make a football decision. It's not about being allowed, he is legally allowed. Fucking murderers playing man.