ads

I'm so angry that I read that article

Ayoze is the guy behind him dishing out leaflets.

He definitely looks like a Norman. More like a Norma No wonder the bloke hasn't seen us live in 4 years, spends his time in empty stadiums by the look of it. Probably turns up at SJP about 10:30 in the morning wonderingf where everyone is.

Positive news, if only he'd have said 'this month'

What if he'd been done for GBH instead of rape? Would people be fine with him returning to football as soon as he was released? The overwhelming evidence is that they would. I think this is where it probably comes down to FA guidelines and should there be any introduced for future. Look at this case and whilst Evans is allowed, officially, to return to football. It's moral objections that prevent him doing so. Now is rape worse than murder? Lee Hughes was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving and sentenced to prison. When he was released he resumed his playing career (with Oldham incidentally...) I don't remember the circumstances surrounding his release and resumption of his football career though, but there's little doubt social media played a huge part in the breakdown of Evans' proposed move to Oldham.

Again, I think a lot of the grey areas surrounding the case and Evans' insistence himself that he's innocent, play a part in this. Clubs who are/were interested in him, are perhaps hopeful that at some point his conviction may be overturned. If he had done that as you said, had brutally raped someone and admitted it in court, would any of these clubs still want him to play for them? You'd assume not.

It's just a massively complicated situation for everyone to comprehend when we'll probably never know what really happened. The only person who know's exactly what happened is Evans himself.

Is this OK? Not really for me, like. Unless the guy is Remi, in which case it is. But I don't think he is. In which case it comes across as in incredibly bad taste.

You say that but where's the smoking gun in this case? Whenever anyone is discussing the evidence publicly available there's never a damning piece of evidence against Evans. There's some stuff that "looks bad" but is that really enough? Everything discussed is 'in his favour' so to speak. Considering the campaign against him if there was such evidence used in court that proves beyond doubt he's guilty then I think we'd have heard about it by now. As far as I know it was decided in court the lass was too drunk to consent (as she said she had no memory and looked pissed on camera) and that's essentially the basis of his conviction. Of course there would have been a lot more to it than and if I'm wrong I'm wrong but I understand this as the ultimate basis to convict. You can tell me "it's the criminal justice system" all you like but that's no guarantee the right decision was made. I think we can all probably agree that, from what we've read, heard and seen ourselves, it does look dubious but on the same score, they found him guilty and he was sentenced as such.

Absolutely. The defence probably said what you said, Hans "Ched did that for no other reason than he's a daft cunt" But the prosecution probaly saw it as a pretty guilty action, no doubt.

Are we waiting for Garde to get fed up and tell us to fuck off, then we appoint Carver and shrug our shoulders. "We tried, folks..."

Bit sexist that isn't it? Assuming every single woman holds that opinion? You think it’s sexist of me to assume that women are anti-rape? Righto. As previous posters have pointed out, you do seem to have major comprehension problems. You probably shouldn't be bandying around terms like "thick as pigshit" about others. To clarify, I think it's sexist of you to assume that all women think the same way about this case. Specifically that they all a) agree that this is a clear cut case of rape b) think that after serving the time in prison dictated by the British justice system he hasn't been punished enough and should not be able to resume his career with someone who is willing to employ him It is also ignorant to think that only men without wives or sisters could possibly think that he should be left alone to get on with his life after serving his sentence. He didn't serve his time he's out on licence. Also he's a convicted rapist, you can't cast aspersions on the validity of his conviction without being in court and seeing all the evidence they saw. It's not as simple as "well it sounds like it's bit dodgy to me!!" are other people out on licence allowed to work during the remainder of their sentence or are they all prevented from doing so? Not sure. I'm merely stating the fact he hasn't "served his time". This all seems to be predicated on the fact it's not a "clear cut case" which doesn't sit very comfortably with me, considering none of us were in court and heard all the evidence. Seems to me if it was as shaky as people think he might have not been convicted? I think it's highly unlikely there is some secret piece of conclusive evidence that was only available in court but hasn't been mentioned by anyone since. Based on what we know, i'm not comfortable with the decision reached by the jury and think he has every right to an appeal. Same here. It was good hearing that woman on Question Time saying the same thing tbh (then getting shouted down mind). The blasé attitude of "he's been found guilty, he's a convicted rapist" in this case is ludicrous really. I don't understand how can this be considered a 'blasé attitude'? The guy was arrested. Went to trial. Was found guilty of rape and convicted as such. Therefore, he's a convicted rapist. It's not blasé at all, until such time he lodges a successful appeal and has it overturned, he will always be a convicted rapist. It's not at all blasé. It seems like people reckon they know more about all the evidence presented than the jury. He left out of the fire escape fwiw. If you wanted to consider that as evidence then that isn't really looking good for him. Him leaving by the fire escape means nothing, man. I've left a hotel through the window before for no other reason than I'm a daft cunt. People do strange shit like that all the tome when they've had a drink. at this. I don't think though, given the circumstances, that leaving through the exit helped his defence case though.

This basically. He's got a cushy job available to him btw outside of football I guess also we must resist the simplistic idea that all 'convicted rapists' are exactly the same. They obviously aren't, I think you can say that without minimising rape as a crime in general. Obviously for legal/official purposes we currently don't have different degrees of rape, but in common sense there are rapists that are many times worse than Ched Evans. I like, and agree with, how you've put that bit, and even taking this into account (which I'm sure we all do) the guy was convicted of rape based on court evidence and witness testimony. Granted, from what we know about the paralytic state of the girl etc it's enormously different to an aggressive, pre-meditated act of rape but as Ian said, there are no different degrees of rape and there is still a victim. Yeah, my meaning was that I'm able to consider him a 'convicted rapist' and believe he should be treated legally as such, while also recognising that he seems to sit on the more benign end of the spectrum. I know it's hard to make this argument without seeming like I'm belittling what he's done or what the victim went through, I'm trying to find a way to express the idea that doesn't do that. Maybe it's a back to front argument, I think some people's reluctance to commit to the idea he's a 'convicted rapist' is because they associate that term with much more violent and aggressive offences. And I'm saying the term can mean many things and we should be able to use it in the technical sense when we're debating what happens to him next, without necessarily any default level of moral judgement. Confusing. I think that's probably the case for the majority of us to be honest. Of course, you've got Ched Evans, convicted of rape after sleeping with a drunk girl who has little or no recollection of events (in a hotel room Evans himself paid for?) and then you've got umpteen cases of girls being preyed on, attacked and raped at knife point - is there a difference morally? Without a shadow of a doubt. Is there a difference in the outcome, post-prison sentence? There's not. Though I absolutely understand why it probably doesn't sit right with people labelling him a convicted rapist, given the company he'll keep in that bracket.

Bit sexist that isn't it? Assuming every single woman holds that opinion? You think it’s sexist of me to assume that women are anti-rape? Righto. As previous posters have pointed out, you do seem to have major comprehension problems. You probably shouldn't be bandying around terms like "thick as pigshit" about others. To clarify, I think it's sexist of you to assume that all women think the same way about this case. Specifically that they all a) agree that this is a clear cut case of rape b) think that after serving the time in prison dictated by the British justice system he hasn't been punished enough and should not be able to resume his career with someone who is willing to employ him It is also ignorant to think that only men without wives or sisters could possibly think that he should be left alone to get on with his life after serving his sentence. He didn't serve his time he's out on licence. Also he's a convicted rapist, you can't cast aspersions on the validity of his conviction without being in court and seeing all the evidence they saw. It's not as simple as "well it sounds like it's bit dodgy to me!!" are other people out on licence allowed to work during the remainder of their sentence or are they all prevented from doing so? Not sure. I'm merely stating the fact he hasn't "served his time". This all seems to be predicated on the fact it's not a "clear cut case" which doesn't sit very comfortably with me, considering none of us were in court and heard all the evidence. Seems to me if it was as shaky as people think he might have not been convicted? I think it's highly unlikely there is some secret piece of conclusive evidence that was only available in court but hasn't been mentioned by anyone since. Based on what we know, i'm not comfortable with the decision reached by the jury and think he has every right to an appeal. Same here. It was good hearing that woman on Question Time saying the same thing tbh (then getting shouted down mind). The blasé attitude of "he's been found guilty, he's a convicted rapist" in this case is ludicrous really. I don't understand how can this be considered a 'blasé attitude'? The guy was arrested. Went to trial. Was found guilty of rape and convicted as such. Therefore, he's a convicted rapist. It's not blasé at all, until such time he lodges a successful appeal and has it overturned, he will always be a convicted rapist. It's blasé imo because there's clearly, clearly some doubt over the conviction and the idea that everyone currently saying he's a convicted rapist now so he should dig ditches for a living will just then gan aye he's not guilty now off you go Ched sits badly with me. If read the details of this case and your conclusion is he's a convicted rapist so fuck him then I just don't know man. Miscarriages of justice happen all the time, and him losing this next appeal wouldn't surprise me as I don't think the justice system will expose itself in this instance. I don't doubt that there's some uncertainties but the jury, at least a majority of them, considered the evidence and he was convicted of rape. Clear cut case or not, that's what happened. I'm not suggesting he should only be allowed to take up menial jobs for the rest of his life, but I just don't know if he should be allowed to return to football. I know there's an argument that football is a job, of course it is, but it's a priveleged one. There are now laws against him doing it but morally, nobody really wants to see it through and sign him up and he can't go abroad right now, can he?

This basically. He's got a cushy job available to him btw outside of football I guess also we must resist the simplistic idea that all 'convicted rapists' are exactly the same. They obviously aren't, I think you can say that without minimising rape as a crime in general. Obviously for legal/official purposes we currently don't have different degrees of rape, but in common sense there are rapists that are many times worse than Ched Evans. I like, and agree with, how you've put that bit, and even taking this into account (which I'm sure we all do) the guy was convicted of rape based on court evidence and witness testimony. Granted, from what we know about the paralytic state of the girl etc it's enormously different to an aggressive, pre-meditated act of rape but as Ian said, there are no different degrees of rape and there is still a victim.

Bit sexist that isn't it? Assuming every single woman holds that opinion? You think it’s sexist of me to assume that women are anti-rape? Righto. As previous posters have pointed out, you do seem to have major comprehension problems. You probably shouldn't be bandying around terms like "thick as pigshit" about others. To clarify, I think it's sexist of you to assume that all women think the same way about this case. Specifically that they all a) agree that this is a clear cut case of rape b) think that after serving the time in prison dictated by the British justice system he hasn't been punished enough and should not be able to resume his career with someone who is willing to employ him It is also ignorant to think that only men without wives or sisters could possibly think that he should be left alone to get on with his life after serving his sentence. He didn't serve his time he's out on licence. Also he's a convicted rapist, you can't cast aspersions on the validity of his conviction without being in court and seeing all the evidence they saw. It's not as simple as "well it sounds like it's bit dodgy to me!!" are other people out on licence allowed to work during the remainder of their sentence or are they all prevented from doing so? Not sure. I'm merely stating the fact he hasn't "served his time". This all seems to be predicated on the fact it's not a "clear cut case" which doesn't sit very comfortably with me, considering none of us were in court and heard all the evidence. Seems to me if it was as shaky as people think he might have not been convicted? I think it's highly unlikely there is some secret piece of conclusive evidence that was only available in court but hasn't been mentioned by anyone since. Based on what we know, i'm not comfortable with the decision reached by the jury and think he has every right to an appeal. Same here. It was good hearing that woman on Question Time saying the same thing tbh (then getting shouted down mind). The blasé attitude of "he's been found guilty, he's a convicted rapist" in this case is ludicrous really. I don't understand how can this be considered a 'blasé attitude'? The guy was arrested. Went to trial. Was found guilty of rape and convicted as such. Therefore, he's a convicted rapist. It's not blasé at all, until such time he lodges a successful appeal and has it overturned, he will always be a convicted rapist.

I'm genuinely baffled that people seem to think he may be innocent, just because he himself hasn't admitted to it. Unless any of us have seen or heard the evidence in court, surely we need to just trust the guy was convicted by judge and jury and so is a convicted rapist. Seriously, what am I missing?

I'm not opposed to the guy returning to work, I just don't think that should be on the football field. He's now on the sex offenders register, should he really be given a chance to resurrect a priveleged career?

True :lol:

Like a small-time crook you mean? A wet bandit. who plays marv? Stifler And Hotel Frank plays Old Man Marley. Poor Frank will get the blame for the flooded hotel rooms He won't like. He never showed up

Try to not look too much into this, Janmaat is probably as frustrated as us and he's not going to come out and say “If it is (John Carver), it’s relegation. We despise him. I think he would take us down. “We despise him, he's pure radge. It will be better when the club makes a statement. It will be better for everyone. Then everyone knows.”

Like a small-time crook you mean? A wet bandit. who plays marv? Stifler And Hotel Frank plays Old Man Marley.

Like a small-time crook you mean? A wet bandit.

Ashley looks like Joe Pesci in Home Alone.

Cheaper than Carver Imagine Carver demanding a big salary? He'd probably do it for weekly hugs from Mourinho.