Grateful that we are not a League One club

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I think you'll find that my summing up is pretty much bang on what happened and isn't disputed except for Evans claiming that she was up for it and her denial that this is the case.

Bull shit.

At no time was it suggested that the sex was non consensual, the single issue was that the judge stated Evans was guilty because the slag was incapable of making a decision.

But she could make a decision 10 minutes earlier when having her first romp, according to the jury. But she has no memory of anything. Staggering really.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I think you'll find that my summing up is pretty much bang on what happened and isn't disputed except for Evans claiming that she was up for it and her denial that this is the case.

Bull shit.

At no time was it suggested that the sex was non consensual, the single issue was that the judge stated Evans was guilty because the slag was incapable of making a decision.

If she was incapable of making a decision how could she have consented?

If there's any bullshit here it's coming from you not me.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

In both cases it is for a jury to decide guilt and a judge to apportion the sanction if required to do so. Not me, not you and definitely not a football club.

100%
Whilst opinions are always welcome they do not alter the above fact. This country has foundations set centuries ago in correct and fair justice. How would you feel going back to collect your driving licence from the police station after 18 month ban to be told ''we held a vote in the canteen and decided you have to do another 12 months so pop back then''
I don't condone what he did but he has served his punishment of prison and we have no right as UK citizens to add to it.

IF he wins the appeal I wonder how many of those on here who say, correctly, ''guilty by jury'' then line up to say ''not guilty by appeal''

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I think you'll find that my summing up is pretty much bang on what happened and isn't disputed except for Evans claiming that she was up for it and her denial that this is the case.

Bull shit.

At no time was it suggested that the sex was non consensual, the single issue was that the judge stated Evans was guilty because the slag was incapable of making a decision.

If she was incapable of making a decision how could she have consented?

Which is why I find the guilty verdict baffling. The onus is on the prosecution to prove the case "beyond reasonable doubt". The fact she doesn't remember what happened tends to support Evans' cause.

Hitch wrote:

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I think you'll find that my summing up is pretty much bang on what happened and isn't disputed except for Evans claiming that she was up for it and her denial that this is the case.

Bull shit.

At no time was it suggested that the sex was non consensual, the single issue was that the judge stated Evans was guilty because the slag was incapable of making a decision.

But she could make a decision 10 minutes earlier when having her first romp, according to the jury. But she has no memory of anything. Staggering really.

How did she know the following day what had happened if she couldn't remember anything?

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I think you'll find that my summing up is pretty much bang on what happened and isn't disputed except for Evans claiming that she was up for it and her denial that this is the case.

Bull shit.

At no time was it suggested that the sex was non consensual, the single issue was that the judge stated Evans was guilty because the slag was incapable of making a decision.

If she was incapable of making a decision how could she have consented?

Which is why I find the guilty verdict baffling. The onus is on the prosecution to prove the case "beyond reasonable doubt". The fact she doesn't remember what happened tends to support Evans' cause.

Quite the contrare. The fact she couldn't remember meanseither she gave no sonsent or he took advantage. Both of which is rape.

tigertony wrote:

Hitch wrote:

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I think you'll find that my summing up is pretty much bang on what happened and isn't disputed except for Evans claiming that she was up for it and her denial that this is the case.

Bull shit.

At no time was it suggested that the sex was non consensual, the single issue was that the judge stated Evans was guilty because the slag was incapable of making a decision.

But she could make a decision 10 minutes earlier when having her first romp, according to the jury. But she has no memory of anything. Staggering really.

How did she know the following day what had happened if she couldn't remember anything?

This is the point. She claims she couldn't remember anything because her drink was spiked - which tests proved it wasn't - the Jury believed she was capable of making a decision about consensual sex with Clayton McDonald but 10 mins or so later wasn't with Ched Evans. She says she can't remember either one. It's utterly bizarre. There's even CCTV footage of her entering hotel looking pretty steady on her feet and the night porter said he heard giggles and squeals coming from the bedroom. She also has a history of making rape claims which the Jury were not told about. It has miscarriage of justice writ large all over it - no wonder he's showing no remorse.

Josh Pope wrote:

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I think you'll find that my summing up is pretty much bang on what happened and isn't disputed except for Evans claiming that she was up for it and her denial that this is the case.

Bull shit.

At no time was it suggested that the sex was non consensual, the single issue was that the judge stated Evans was guilty because the slag was incapable of making a decision.

If she was incapable of making a decision how could she have consented?

Which is why I find the guilty verdict baffling. The onus is on the prosecution to prove the case "beyond reasonable doubt". The fact she doesn't remember what happened tends to support Evans' cause.

Quite the contrare. The fact she couldn't remember meanseither she gave no sonsent or he took advantage. Both of which is rape.

But the Jury said she was capable of making a decision with Clayton McDonald but not with Ched Evans minutes later.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I think you'll find that my summing up is pretty much bang on what happened and isn't disputed except for Evans claiming that she was up for it and her denial that this is the case.

Bull shit.

At no time was it suggested that the sex was non consensual, the single issue was that the judge stated Evans was guilty because the slag was incapable of making a decision.

If she was incapable of making a decision how could she have consented?

If there's any bullshit here it's coming from you not me.

You've not a fooking clue have you Franny?

seadog wrote:

Can we, well you Lord Tis, stop referring to her as bitch, slag or any other offensive term?

Nobody on here is that easily impressed.

Bugger, and was I desperately trying to gain cred with you old scrotes.

The language is merely to make the point that there are two ways of looking at this situation, basing your view entirely on the jury's verdict and hating Evans would be the same as me assuming the woman in question was either a slag or a bitch because she went to a hotel room and got shagged by two fellahs.

The issue itself is quite simple, the woman in question had sex with two fellahs ten minutes apart, there was no question at the time of either act being non consensual, she was conscious during both acts, then the jury decides that she is capable of making a decision to be shagged by Donaldson but that ten minutes later she was not capable of making the same decision with Evans, this despite the fact that she contended from the start that she had no recollection of either shagging.

Subsequently she has been shown to be an habitual liar and had previously made claims of rape which weren't conveyed to the jury, she was not some starry eyed virgin when she went into that hotel room.

But I am of course only too happy to refrain from calling her slag or bitch if that makes happy.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

seadog wrote:

Can we, well you Lord Tis, stop referring to her as bitch, slag or any other offensive term?

Nobody on here is that easily impressed.

Bugger, and was I desperately trying to gain cred with you old scrotes.

The language is merely to make the point that there are two ways of looking at this situation, basing your view entirely on the jury's verdict and hating Evans would be the same as me assuming the woman in question was either a slag or a bitch because she went to a hotel room and got shagged by two fellahs.

The issue itself is quite simple, the woman in question had sex with two fellahs ten minutes apart, there was no question at the time of either act being non consensual, she was conscious during both acts, then the jury decides that she is capable of making a decision to be shagged by Donaldson but that ten minutes later she was not capable of making the same decision with Evans, this despite the fact that she contended from the start that she had no recollection of either shagging.

Subsequently she has been shown to be an habitual liar and had previously made claims of rape which weren't conveyed to the jury, she was not some starry eyed virgin when she went into that hotel room.

But I am of course only too happy to refrain from calling her slag or bitch if that makes happy.

+1

So did her previous rape claims lead to arrests and convictions?

Czarcasm wrote:

So did her previous rape claims lead to arrests and convictions?

No they didn't. This information and other witness statements detailing the girl's uber promiscuity were deemed inadmissible in court by the Judge.

Breaking news on SkySports that the deal with Oldham is now off.

I think the FA needs to grow a pair here, why not make a statement that either a) convicted criminals are allowed to return to professional football once there time is served, they could also place a caveat that remorse must be shown beforehand or b) footballers can return to football five years after the offence or not at all.

If she was that totally pissed how did she even know that Evans had had his way? What if he had said ''I can't remember anything''

Iggy wrote:

I think the FA needs to grow a pair here, why not make a statement that either a) convicted criminals are allowed to return to professional football once there time is served, they could also place a caveat that remorse must be shown beforehand or b) footballers can return to football five years after the offence or not at all.

Which offences fall into that box then?

Could be a jail term, could be the seriousness of the offence my point is that the governing body of football is pretty piss poor when it comes to actual governance. Or conversely they could announce that anyone that has done their time is allowed to play.

Iggy wrote:

I think the FA needs to grow a pair here, why not make a statement that either a) convicted criminals are allowed to return to professional football once there time is served, they could also place a caveat that remorse must be shown beforehand or b) footballers can return to football five years after the offence or not at all.

As we saw with the John Terry case when the courts found him not guilty yet they still treated him as if he was and punished him anyway because The FA are run by pressure groups. Im positive they will make the FA state he cant play football again even though they have no legal right to do so. Dont agree with the time frame you put iggy but the saying sorry bit i do.

Ched in the eyes of the law has done his time and paid his dues for what he done. While the stigma will alwaysremain there isnt saying he cant rejoin society and work for a living for the rest of his life.
As i said before he and his family where badly advised with their media comments and appearances and that video which made matters worse.

Its a shame that Oldham had to pull out of this deal because of emotional blackmail from sponsors and Charlie Webster's led witch hunt in the media and on social media and not for football reasons.

Pressure groups are running the country I'm afraid. I talked this over with my sister who is an ardent feminist, she wants Ched Evans to be castrated but would also like the girl involved to grow some armpit hair and wear dungarees because (that's me paraphrasing with a bit of artistic licence btw) "the way these tarts dress no wonder they get raped!" not much sympathy for a sister in trouble I'm afraid.

The deal was called off because members of Oldhams' board and sponsors received death threats last night.

Czarcasm wrote:

Breaking news on SkySports that the deal with Oldham is now off.

I'll assume Evans will turn up to training tomorrow anyway.

As things stand Evans is a convicted rapist and as such he is out of prison on license and could be sent back at any time; he has not yet served his time but is still serving it.

As a convicted rapist he will be placed on the sex offenders register and will be tagged whenever a CRB check gets done on him.

This will deny a club the chance to use him for meeting visitors to the club if they contain people considered to be vulnerable. This will include visiting school groups, visiting kids' teams and others.

Evans would not be able to be involved with any of the visits players might do to schools, hospitals and other youth organisations. He would not be allowed to attend training sessions with a club's own youth teams. He wouldn't be allowed to interact in any way with the kids who get to be club mascots. God knows how any women working for the club might feel about him being around.

This all presents his future club something of a dilemma: how could they actually ensure that Evans is kept apart from vulnerable people all of the time? It's not impossible but it is very difficult and it is the club which would be at fault if something was to happen again in the future.

It's not just about Evans's skill at kicking a bag of air around; there's real compelling reasons for not employing him.

As for the death threats: despicable and cowardly. The threats need to be reported to the police and the guity brought to account.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

As things stand Evans is a convicted rapist and as such he is out of prison on license and could be sent back at any time; he has not yet served his time but is still serving it.

As a convicted rapist he will be placed on the sex offenders register and will be tagged whenever a CRB check gets done on him.

This will deny a club the chance to use him for meeting visitors to the club if they contain people considered to be vulnerable. This will include visiting school groups, visiting kids' teams and others.

Evans would not be able to be involved with any of the visits players might do to schools, hospitals and other youth organisations. He would not be allowed to attend training sessions with a club's own youth teams. He wouldn't be allowed to interact in any way with the kids who get to be club mascots. God knows how any women working for the club might feel about him being around.

This all presents his future club something of a dilemma: how could they actually ensure that Evans is kept apart from vulnerable people all of the time? It's not impossible but it is very difficult and it is the club which would be at fault if something was to happen again in the future.

It's not just about Evans's skill at kicking a bag of air around; there's real compelling reasons for not employing him.

As for the death threats: despicable and cowardly. The threats need to be reported to the police and the guity brought to account.

the only reason they didnt hire him was because the hate mob issued death threats and resorted to terrorism in away to get their desire wished. no other reason. As for the other things like with luke you could easliy deal with them. its not mandatory in contracts to visit schools or kids teams etc etc.

Strewth...

Luke McCormick is not on any register at all, and is not - most definitely not - on the sex offenders register at all. He would not be in danger of failing a CRB assessment of being an appropriate adult alowed to work with vulnerable people.

As I have already said: McCormick's case falls one side of a line and Evans's the other. They are not in all respects identical cases.